atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Social Media’

Alt media, cybernuts also promoting racial stereotyping and worse

In Uncategorized on 08/08/2019 at 11:00 am

This has been shared widely in cyberspace especially by anti-PAP alt media publications and the social media feeds of cybernuts and the usual ang moh tua kees. They are KPKBing against a now well-known ad for a NETS E-Pay campaign tot by them to use “brownface”, and voicing support for subsequent self promotion “retaliation” video by two persons who claim to be offended by the ad. And it didn’t help matters when an ethnic Indian super heavyweight minister weighed in with comments that the video crossed various red lines because it attacked ethnic Chinese: Brownfacegate: Did you know Shanmugam also said this?

It all seemed so unfair to the cybernuts and many others that censoring the video and investigating Preetipls and Subhas (they made and appeared on the video), while those who came up with the “brownface” advertisement got off lightly.

Well this pix has four things wrong going by the criticism of the offending ad and the defence of the video.

Firstly, why is the offended person portrayed as an ethnic Chinese lady? Going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video, the picture is saying that ethnic Chinese, and wimmin, in particular, are prone to being easily upset and offended on racial matters. Not racism and sexism meh?

Also going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video, the picture says that Indians, and males in particular, are prone to allege racism. Not racism and sexism meh?

Next, going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video showing the Indian as light-skinned is taking sides in an ethnic Indian row. Many of our ethnic Indians have darker-skin tones than this guy: because many S’poean Indians are Tamil. Since the PAP introduced “Let the Indians flood in”, the proportion of Northern Indians here are increasing. Some of them even try to practice the caste system here in S’pore saying the fair-skinned Indians (Hindi speakers) of a higher caste than our local Tamil-speakers. It’s a fact that in Northern India, that lighter-skinned Indians are preferred to darker-skinned Indians. The marriage ads often specify the need for a partner to be “wheat coloured” or other such euphemisms denoting light-coloured skin. Not colourism meh?

Finally, why must the Indian be a male? Does it reflect the stereotype that Indians prefer male children? And that Indians abort female fetuses? Sexism at work.

Fyi, I have no problems with the ad or the video or this picture. I take issue with the subsequent action by MediaCorp against one of the persons in the video (taking him out of a video it’s making).

FYi II, I know the person who did the above photo. He is “woke” and anti-PAP, but no racist, and he’s Chinese.

My  point is that there’ll always be something in any picture or ad that will offend somebody.

 

How Hongkies organised leaderless protests

In China, Hong Kong on 18/07/2019 at 11:32 am

An excerpt from a BBC report. I recommend that real anti-PAP warriors read the report to pick up tips.

Many of the calls to protest are made anonymously, on message boards and in group chats on encrypted messaging apps.

Some groups have up to 70,000 active subscribers, representing about 1% of Hong Kong’s entire population. Many provide updates and first-hand reports relating to the protests, while others act as a crowdsourced lookout for police, warning protestors of nearby activity.

There are also smaller groups made up of lawyers, first aiders and medics. They provide legal advice and get supplies to protesters on the front lines.

Demonstrators say the online co-ordination of protests offers a convenient and instant way to disseminate information. The chat groups also let participants vote – in real time – to decide the next moves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48802125

Why PAP should juz ban Facebook

In Internet on 26/05/2019 at 11:13 am

Facebook users are the problem, not fake news.

Research by the Oxford Internet Institute found that that individual junk news (as it defined) stories were more likely to be shared on Facebook than the work of mainstream news organisations. While mainstream news was more visible, stories from junk news sources proved far more engaging. In English, for example, the average junk news story got four times as many likes and other Facebook interactions as a story from a professional news organisation.

The study was done across seven languages ahead of the vote in recent EU elections.

Reference: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48345260

Related articles:

Fake news is magic

Fake news?

The one-party state and fake news

Why the PAP is really afraid of Facebook?

Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin

Fighting fake news while raising revenue

What is “news”?/ “Fake news” is not “fake” says Harvard expert

Fake news is magic

In Internet on 12/05/2019 at 1:46 pm

Here’s an interesting extract on why fake news works even when we know it’s fake news

Magic is about manipulating our perceptions, “exploiting cognitive loopholes,” says Dr Kuhn – and understanding how magic works is being recognised as having wider implications.

“Misdirection” is a key part of magic – getting people to not look at what’s important, but to distract them, change the subject, use a dramatic prop and push their attention elsewhere, so they do not see what is happening in front of their eyes.

It’s being used to to examine areas such as road safety, says Dr Kuhn, looking at how to make sure drivers can really focus on what’s important.

“How do people fail to see something even though they are looking at it?” he says.

Fake news
It’s also applicable to bigger social and political questions, he says, such as how to respond to “fake news” and false information on social media.

The lesson of magic, says Dr Kuhn, is that even if something is recognised as false, it still makes an impression and steals our attention, and researchers are looking at how understanding magic can help to investigate the world of conspiracy theories and fake information.

.This is where someone thinks they are choosing a card at random, but the magician is really manipulating their decision and the “choices” are false.

“Free will is an illusion. People are much more suggestible than they think. All of our perceptions are very malleable,” says Dr Kuhn.

This suggestibility and use of false options can be misused in a political sense, he says.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47827346

Don’t believe me? Read more at Fake news?

proposed law against fake news narrows, not widens, the Government’s powers, the Ministry of Law said on Thursday (May 2).

Or

The one-party state and fake news

Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin

Fighting fake news while raising revenue

What is “news”?/ “Fake news” is not “fake” says Harvard expert

 

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”

In Internet, Political governance, Public Administration on 11/05/2019 at 10:59 am

Did Minister Shan say this?

No. But he could have and still may soon. Or some other minister may say it, if Shan is taking a break, because this is the philosophy behind the new law. Ministers can publish corrections alongside claims about public institutions that it deems false. Those who publish false statements with “malicious intent” face criminal sanctions, including fines of up to S$1m and jail sentences of up to 10 years.

Don’t believe me? The law differs from laws against the spread of misinformation in other jurisdictions, which typically focus on taking down problematic content from online platforms.

Still don’t believe me? Read The one-party state and fake news where I quoted from Fake news law: Ownself judge ownself

The problem about lies or “fake news” is who gets to decide what is or is not a lie or “fake news”.

In liberal democracies, even the president of the US cannot get his view of what is or is not a lie or “fake news” accepted by even a majority of the voters. There’s some sort of consensus (“conventional wisdom”) driven (manipulated?) by the elites and media about what is or is not a lie or “fake news” in which facts often play an important part.

In a one-party state (de facto or de jure) the ruling party decides what is or is not a lie or “fake news”

— Keeping power in a one-party state

— Would this happen in a one-party state?

— Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

The planned tackling of “fake news” is a smokescreen for muzzling further netizens, not juz cybernuts. The internet and social media has made it a lot easier for S’poreans to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP.

— Minister wants his cake and eat it/ PAP doesn’t get the Internet

— Ingratitude, uniquely S’porean? Blame the internet? Not really

— Us Netizens: Comancherios of the Internet?

This freedom (relative) to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP worries the PAP (juz like the CCP worries about the internet and social media in China), hence the plan to further muzzle the internet and social media.

was said by Idi Amin

a Ugandan president best known for his brutal regime and crimes against humanity while in power from 1971-1979.

Idi Amin – Facts, Life & Uganda – Biography – Famous Biographies

Fake news?

In Internet, Political governance, Public Administration on 08/05/2019 at 1:22 pm

proposed law against fake news narrows, not widens, the Government’s powers, the Ministry of Law said on Thursday (May 2).

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/online-falsehoods-bill-pofma-fake-news-narrows-government-powers-11496172

The article goes on

The Law Ministry’s Ms Teo reiterated the point …. that that the powers to be given to the Government under the Bill, and the public interest grounds on which the Government can exercise its powers, “are actually narrower than the Government’s existing powers”.

“In key areas, the Bill narrows, rather than extends, the Government’s powers,” she said in the letter that was also provided to CNA and published in the Straits Times.

But as has been pointed out by the public

[The] proposed law is also broad and vague in how it can and will be implemented. Clarifications and amendments are needed to make it more focused on its real purpose.

FB post

And

But more clarifications and more amendments might mean more restrictions which the G is not willing to impose on itself.

If and how the G reacts to criticism will be very telling on where its comfort zone is.

Another FB post

Related posts:

The one-party state and fake news

Why the PAP is really afraid of Facebook?

Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin

Fighting fake news while raising revenue

What is “news”?/ “Fake news” is not “fake” says Harvard expert

 

 

TOC recovering from its anti-Nas fever/ Why TOC keeps on making “honest mistakes”?

In Internet on 23/04/2019 at 11:06 am

Further to TOC, cybernuts juz plain jealous isit?, I was about to KPKB that TOC was becoming xenophobic citing as evidence its nasty comments on Nas, especially harping that he’s a foreigner. Doesn’t sound like the Terry I know.

But I changed my mind when TOC responded to this on FB

Another foreigner telling us how good our Gahmen is. Just what we need…..
VTO

by saying

I need to defend Nas on this. He actually answered it very well in his reply to a question posed by a member of public. The guy from Pakistan who is based in Singapore, asked if Nas will be talking about the good and bad in Singapore, since he is settling down here for the time being.

Nas said that he recognises that he is still a foreigner in Singapore and it is not his position to tell what is good and what is bad but he tries to bring out the best of whatever he gets in touch with. Will put up the video of that if I can.

The problem is that audience of his videos, think that he can cover all aspect of a matter within one min and if he says it is good, means nothing is wrong.

(Sounds like Terry of Terry’s Online Channel, not one of his goons.)

commented
Good to see that TOC is recovering from it’s anti-Nas bout (that almost became xenophobic fever). I suppose Kirsten Han’s article helped the recovery.
Readers will know that I’m no fan of Kirsten Han but she got this right:
Nas Daily might not be playing politics—I seriously doubt he knows that much about Singaporean politics, anyway
She went on
—but the PAP is
Obviously, she doesn’t believe
Nas Daily fan meet a ‘non-cause based’ event, Public Order Act permit not required: Police
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/nas-daily-fan-meet-a-non-cause-based-event-public-order-act-11462242
But then she wouldn’t believe anything the S’pore govt or any govt agency says, would she? To be fair, if an ang moh publication like NYT or the Guardian says that the PAP govt is right, she’d agree thru gritted teeth: she is one of those ang moh tua kee types. Read this if you want to know more about what else she said: https://www.kirstenhan.com/blog/2019/4/19/tfw-its-not-actually-about-nas-daily?fbclid=IwAR2PCtBGdK9kunMTEbC_5jM-Z42q1tJ4YpS02kH_vr4KnNo0qKuvsMmWLTo
Sad that cybernuts active on social media can’t distinguish between Nas and the PAP govt, and attack him personally when they should be focusing their attacks on the PAP govt for using him (as they perceive it) for its own agenda (as they perceive it). But with enemies like the cybernuts, the PAP doesn’t need friends. For that many S’poreans are grateful.
Whatever, Terry should investigate why his team keeps making “honest mistakes”, this year:
Maybe some ISD or PAP operative working in TOC is giving Terry and others the wrong pills or slipping drugs into their drinks. But most likely, Terry and his team need to consult Dr Ang Yong Guan. They could be going nuts.

More evidence that being anti-PAP is bad for yr mental health

Spending too much time in TRELand is bad for one’s mental health

He’s expensive. But I’m sure, he’ll give a hefty discount to comrades still fighting the good fight. For the record, he’s not retired from the good fight: juz resting between general elections?

 

TOC, cybernuts juz plain jealous isit?

In Internet, Tourism on 20/04/2019 at 11:36 am

I couldn’t help laughing when I saw this headline from Terry’s Online Channel: “Why is a controversial foreign blogger allowed to organise a massive gathering at the Botanic Gardens?”

I laughed even more when I read

Why is a foreign vlogger who has consistently stoke controversy allowed to involve himself in Singapore’s domestic issues? Doesn’t Singapore have law specifically designed to prevent that foreigners from influencing local social and political issues?

This is pure BS from TOC: nowhere in the TOC rant does it give details of

— how he involves himself in Singapore’s domestic issues; or

— how he’s influencing local social and political issues?

TOC is juz publishing fake news.

NAS’s juz a guy organising a do for his fans, and hoping to use them as props for his next mega dollar video, as far as I’m concerned.

And Terry Xu and TOC is not happy that S’poreans can have a bit of fun, while helping a FT make money.

TOC has explained its KPKB

No, seriously the question is whether a video is considered political when it is negative and when it is positive, it is not. Because by answering that question, you can realise what is political and what is not, particularly under Singapore’s govt’s definition.

FB comment on the article

Go read the article again and tell me if it got across that point. It didn’t. It was rant against an FT. The comment was damage control.

Btw, the sliming continues, TOC posted a copy of his Israeli passport and told us he can’t go to M’sia because of it. What has this to do with the price of eggs?

To be fair to Terry and his bunch of TOC idiots, a lot of anti-PAP types are expressing their unhappiness on FB and other social media.

What a bunch of kill-joy born losers. And juz because Nas said some nice things about living here. I mean after all there’s lot of free things here: Fake News: S’pore is Pay And Pay/ Truth: Plenty of gd, free stuff.

These grumpy, anti-PAP losers should organise an anti-Nas protest or a protest against all foreigners who say nice things about S’pore (After all if they hate Nas because he says nice things about S’pore, they must hate all foreigners who have nice things to say about S’pore) at Hong Leong Green and see how many people turn up.

Btw, I’m no fan of Nas but I know people who enjoy his stuff. Live and let live.

TOC and other anti-PAP types have scored an own goal on this issue. And they keep wondering why the PAP keeps winning?

 

 

The one-party state and fake news

In Internet, Political governance, Public Administration on 18/04/2019 at 7:57 am

In Why I no ak the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods in April last year, I wrote about the above. I tot that as this is the season about

disaster and even death as the doorways for redemption. It’s about apparent failure and ultimate success. It’s about vivid appearances and unsuspected realities.

Tom Morris

, I’d resurrect the piece given that a very draconian law is going to be enacted soon (Fake news law: Ownself judge ownself)

The problem about lies or “fake news” is who gets to decide what is or is not a lie or “fake news”.

In liberal democracies, even the president of the US cannot get his view of what is or is not a lie or “fake news” accepted by even a majority of the voters. There’s some sort of consensus (“conventional wisdom”) driven (manipulated?) by the elites and media about what is or is not a lie or “fake news” in which facts often play an important part.

In a one-party state (de facto or de jure) the ruling party decides what is or is not a lie or “fake news”

— Keeping power in a one-party state

— Would this happen in a one-party state?

— Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

The planned tackling of “fake news” is a smokescreen for muzzling further netizens, not juz cybernuts. The internet and social media has made it a lot easier for S’poreans to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP.

— Minister wants his cake and eat it/ PAP doesn’t get the Internet

— Ingratitude, uniquely S’porean? Blame the internet? Not really

— Us Netizens: Comancherios of the Internet?

This freedom (relative) to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP worries the PAP (juz like the CCP worries about the internet and social media in China), hence the plan to further muzzle the internet and social media.

In a recent FB post, I commented that I can see the good of getting Lim Tean and Goh Meng Seng (Meng Seng: fake news propogator) off the air: Chris K that my view was the equivalent of thinking the SS were right to kill everyone in a village when a few SS troops were killed nearby. He has a point.

Since you have read this far, you may be interested in

Why the PAP is really afraid of Facebook?

Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin

Fighting fake news while raising revenue

What is “news”?/ “Fake news” is not “fake” says Harvard expert

Local academics propogate fake news?

 

How Microsoft is subverting China

In China, Internet on 14/04/2019 at 10:48 am

We read a lot in reputable Western media about how China is attempting to subvert Western liberal democracies. But we don’t hear there about how the US (the Europeans, Antipodeans, Canadians and Japanese juz roll over and play dead ) is striking back, or that China may actually be only defending itself against US subversion.

TrumpLand is using a tactic that Sun Tzu would approve: providing tools to enable lazy, unpatriotic, entitled young Chinese tech workers to demand shorter working hours.

FT headline:

China tech worker protest against long working hours goes viral

Online campaign against working 9am-9pm six days a week hits nerve with youth

It reported that the Chinese organisers are rallying support via a project on GitHub, the Microsoft-owned collaboration platform for coders and developers. The project is called 996.icu, because by working 9am-9pm, six days a week , as the English version puts it, “you might need to stay in an Intensive Care Unit someday”. They insist this is not a political protest.

The movement is being organised by volunteers on collaborative platforms — primarily Microsoft’s GitHub, used for code-sharing, as well as Slack, used for messaging. Both are US tech cos.

JD.com said in response to media reports of employees complaining that their 996 schedule was a way of forcing resignations, “We will not force employees to work overtime, but we encourage everyone to fully invest themselves.” Define “fully invest themselves” please.

Workers of China unite against Chinese tech giants and Make America Great Again.

PAP would agree with Sudan’s autocratic president

In Uncategorized on 03/02/2019 at 10:05 am

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir has ridiculed his opponents’ use of social media to organise recent protests against his rule.

“Changing the government or presidents cannot be done through WhatsApp or Facebook. It can be done only through elections,” he told his supporters.

He was speaking as fresh demonstrations were held in the capital Khartoum.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47075513

Mr Bashir, has won elections several times since coming to power in a coup in 1989.

Vote wisely. This means not voting for Mad Dog, Lim Tean or Meng Seng . But do think of voting for good SDP, WP and Tan Cheng Bock teams if they are better than the PAPpies on show.

Why PAP is afraid of social media

In Uncategorized on 27/01/2019 at 9:33 am

They are scared that social media can quickly convince PAP voters that any Hard Truth (Example: “HDB flats are an appreciating asset” or “SAF cares for S’poreans who serve”) is BS.

Social change has sped up and social media is one of the main reasons why.

Some habit or behaviour is widely accepted. Then evidence emerges of the costs. Victims speak out, and organise a lobby to campaign for change. They get the ear, and heart, of those in power. Eventually public opinion shifts – and so legislators, and the law, follow.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46483557

Gods punishing Potong Pasir residents for voting PAP?

In Media, Political governance, Public Administration on 31/12/2018 at 10:32 am

In the space of the last few days, the constructive, nation-building media reported without comment (Imagine if these bad things had happened in Aljunied or Hougang?):

Giant trap to control Javan Myna population trialed in Potong Pasir
and
Burst pipe in Potong Pasir leaves homes without water for several hours
It could be that the Gods are punishing the residents of Potong Pasir for preferring material benefits that the PAP offers in return for deserting the Chiams.
Will the residents repent abandoning the Chiams in 2011 and not turning back to them in 2015? Will they vote for Mrs Chiam in next GE?
Seriously, I’m shocked that anti-PAP publications like TOC, TRE and The Idiots, and the cybernuts on social media are not using the incidents to show that the PAP govt is incompetent: it can’t even look after areas that support the PAP.
Maybe, these people are on luxury holidays overseas and so missed the news.
But most probably, the cybernuts (not enough money to even donate peanuts to keep alive TOC and TRE let alone go on luxury hols) are distracted by what they consider as the persecutions of Uncle Leong, Terry and Daniel Augustin De Costa aka Willy Sum: PAP & strategic distraction
Or even more likely, the PAP has succeeded in frightening the chickens and sheep by suing a few monkeys.
What do you think?
Prosperous 2019. Vote wisely but not for the three stooges: Mad Dog, Lim Tean, Meng Seng where are yr durians?. And make a distinction between Dr Chee and the SDP.

Law on sharing defamatory articles

In Uncategorized on 27/12/2018 at 9:33 am

Uncle Leong is playing the innocent victim, saying he juz shared the infamous article on social media.

“He does not assert that what the article said or is alleged to have said was true,” said Mr Lim [Lim Tean, Uncle Leong’s lawyer] in Mr Leong’s defence, adding that all Mr Leong did “was to share without endorsement or comment a link to an article” which had been sent to him on Facebook.

 

The cybernut brigade (CB?), the anti-PAPpists’ answer to the PAP IB, have said that since Uncle Leong has been sued, everyone else sharing said article should also be sued. And if they are not sued, why not? They got a point and it’s juz like these nuts to want to sabo other cybernuts who shared said article.

Sorry back to “sharing” as defamation

Repeating defamatory matter

 

The general rule in English law is that it is no defence in an action for defamation for a defendant to prove that he was only repeating the words of another. Accordingly, if producers wish to repeat potentially defamatory allegations, they must always seek legal advice. It may be that we will safely be able to repeat the allegations because, for example, the reporting is covered by privilege, but advice from the programme lawyer must be sought. On matters of public interest, the neutral reporting of disputes between third parties, where allegations are not adopted or endorsed, is likely to be defensible but again advice from the programme lawyer must be sought.

https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/defamation/intentional-accidental-defamation

Need I say more than that S’pore law is also liddat.

 

Why the PAP is really afraid of Facebook?

In Internet on 10/12/2018 at 4:39 am

Yellow vest protests ‘economic catastrophe’ for France

(BBC headline)

The PAP is trying to intimidate Facebook not really because of fake news but because Facebook can be used to turn sheep into wolves.

Much has already been written about the anti-Muslim Facebook riots in Myanmar and Sri Lanka and the WhatsApp lynchings in Brazil and India. Well, the same process is happening in Europe now, on a massive scale. Here’s how Facebook tore France apart. (BuzzFeed)

Buzzfeed reported on 6 December (before the above BBC headline)

This week, protesters scaled the Arc de Triomphe, burned cars, and clashed with police in the third consecutive weekend of riots in France. More than 300 people were arrested in Paris last weekend alone, and 37,000 law enforcement officers have been deployed around the country to restore order.

The “Gilets Jaunes” or “Yellow Jackets” protests have only gotten more violent since they began last month. Three people have died, hundreds more have been injured. To hear the protesters tell it, they’re marching through the streets to fight back against rising fuel prices and the high cost of living in the country. Beyond that, though, it’s an ideological free-for-all. Fights have also been witnessed among demonstrators, and some have sent death threats to other protesters.

But what’s happening right now in France isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Yellow Jackets movement — named for the protesters’ brightly colored safety vests — is a beast born almost entirely from Facebook. And it’s only getting more popular. Recent polls indicate the majority of France now supports the protesters. The Yellow Jackets communicate almost entirely on small, decentralized Facebook pages. They coordinate via memes and viral videos. Whatever gets shared the most becomes part of their platform.

Due to the way algorithm changes made earlier this year interacted with the fierce devotion in France to local and regional identity, the country is now facing some of the worst riots in many years — and in Paris, the worst in half a century.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/france-paris-yellow-jackets-facebook

To be fair to the sheep and the French, the French mob doesn’t need much to get it violent. But you know what I’m trying to drive at: Facebook is a great tool to organise and energise people.

Over to you Mad Dog. Turn the sheep into mad dogs? Still say we got to appease the neighbours? Yr silence is deafening.

Disassociate yrself from Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum and Kirsten Han* ( “Antics Of Civil Society Activists Endanger Opposition Cause”); and Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs. Their silence is deafening shameful and in character. Sad.

(Last four sentences added after first publication)

 

Crazy Pinoy Asians

In Internet on 27/09/2018 at 4:20 am

Only in America.

Frustrated by the lack of Asian people on the marketing posters covering the restaurant, Jevh Maravilla and Christian Toledo took matters into their own hands.

The pair took a photo of themselves, added the McDonald’s branding and hung it on a bare wall in their local restaurant in Houston, Texas.

Now

One of the two friends who caught the attention of millions when they pranked their local McDonald’s has told the BBC that he “wants to push Asian representation further” in “TV and Hollywood”.

Jevh Maravilla, 21, added that “the past few weeks have felt like a dream.”

On the Ellen DeGeneres Show last week the men were each presented with cheques for $25,000 (about £19,000) from the company and told they would be starring in a marketing campaign.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45633982

In S’pore. they’d be caned for vandalism and flamed on social media and the internet for being Peeoys. Sad.

Tun and Trump: Talk cock, break things

In Uncategorized on 05/06/2018 at 10:37 am

Looks like Najib was faking it when he hinted he and Trump were bros. Tun and Trump are the real bros deal.

For starters, they both remind me of this quote by another POTUS

Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a good carpenter to build one.”

Lyndon B. Johnson

For another this is what Augustine Low wrote on TRE

Dr Mahathir has a fundamental strategy not unlike that of the one that has served President Donald Trump very well. He keeps saying he wants to Restore Malaysia’s Glory (Trump’s motto is Make America Great Again). Dr Mahathir is moving at breakneck speed, racing against time to do what he tells Malaysians is necessary to bring back the glory days. What he says is gold and he has the backing of his countrymen and women because he is seen as a saviour who can do no wrong – at least for now.

Tun has the same communication strategy as Trump: Talk cock, Move fast, Break things,

Full piece

The risks of letting Mahathir be Mahathir in the age of social media

When Dr Mahathir Mohamad was last the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Lee Hsien Loong was not yet Prime Minister of Singapore, and social media was not yet the phenomenon it is today.

But it seems that the Singapore government is treating Dr Mahathir the way it did some 20 years ago: Let Mahathir be Mahathir, let him say and do what he wants, we’ll keep mum and we’ll only cross that bridge when we come to it.

With the social media, everything that Dr Mahathir says becomes instantaneously widespread. His remarks that “the people of Singapore, like the people of Malaysia, must be tired of having the same government, the same party since independence,” immediately became the talk of the town. Thanks to the fact that it was all over the Internet and social media applications such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp in double quick time.

Singapore’s mainstream media did not even touch on those remarks. Because Singaporeans are not supposed to know? Because they would be deemed offensive by the government? Needless to say, such censorship does not hold sway anymore.

The government has always been quick to rebut criticism and unseemly comments, especially those seen as meddling in internal affairs. But it has kept mum about Mahathir’s provocative remarks about Singaporeans being “tired of having the same government” and about plans to build an island near Pedra Branca.

Dr Mahathir has tested the waters and sent out signals that he going to be combative, especially the way he called off the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore high speed rail project – unilaterally, without even an official word to the Singapore government, displaying trademark nonchalance and disdain.

Dr Mahathir has a fundamental strategy not unlike that of the one that has served President Donald Trump very well. He keeps saying he wants to Restore Malaysia’s Glory (Trump’s motto is Make America Great Again). Dr Mahathir is moving at breakneck speed, racing against time to do what he tells Malaysians is necessary to bring back the glory days. What he says is gold and he has the backing of his countrymen and women because he is seen as a saviour who can do no wrong – at least for now.

Singapore’s strategy of letting things simmer down and take its course may no longer be relevant because the 92-year-old is a man in a hurry and the 24-hour news and social media cycle suits him just fine.

Clearly, the government is still trying to grapple with how to manage relations with Dr Mahathir. The strategy of two decades ago must be reworked.

Beyond showing their mettle and resolve, Singapore’s leaders also need to raise their game when it comes to agility and speed of response and communication.

Augustine Low

* The author is a proud but concerned citizen. Voicing independent, unplugged opinion is his contribution to citizen engagement.

Memo to anti-PAP cybernuts: Tun is not God

In Malaysia on 31/05/2018 at 4:15 am

Further to Anti-PAP S’poreans sucking up to Tun where I reported that anti-PAP cybernuts were upset that our PM had not told Tun M that M’sia need not pay anything to cancel HSR deal

When asked if Dr Mahathir’s decision was final, Transport Minister Anthony Loke said the Malaysia Cabinet had not yet discussed the issue, but would do so at their weekly meeting on Wednesday.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-pm-mahathir-says-will-inform-singapore-of-intent-to-10286868

Now Tun says

Speaking to reporters after a weekly Cabinet meeting, Dr Mahathir announced that his Cabinet has agreed to cancel the HSR project.

But this will be subject to discussions with the Singapore government because it involves “high financial implications”, he added.

When asked if he would reconsider should Singapore request for the project’s continuation, Dr Mahathir replied: “We will listen to them. They are our good partners.”

So nothing is “final”. Don’t believe me?

Malaysia’s new Transport Minister Anthony Loke said as much when he told Channel Newsasia that the project is “subject to review” if the country is in a better fiscal position later on. “Why we cancelled the project is because of affordability,” he added. “The priority of the government is to pay our debts and the ability to repay our debts, that is our main priority, that’s why some of these projects must be shelved.”

Today

And btw, still no letter:

the Singapore Land Authority repeated the Ministry of Transport’s earlier media statement that the Government is waiting for official confirmation from its Malaysian counterparts.

Hopefully our cybernuts will stop behaving as though he is God.

Anti-PAP S’poreans sucking up to Tun

In Infrastructure, Malaysia on 30/05/2018 at 11:04 am

From my coffee shop chat group: I feel the silence on d part of our govt on d cancellation HSR proj is shocking in diplomatic terms. We shld imm announce that we will forgive d penalty other than for what we had spent.!!! LHL fave strategy is always to keep quiet on any crisis. This is leadership.

FB post by anti-PAP FB warrior yesterday

I’m sure if Dr M asked this group to suck his XXXX, this bunch of anti-PAP Facebook warriors would happily do so. They’d even offer their asses to Anwar while pleasuring Tun with their mouths,if Anwar asked.

Think I’m being too harsh?

The above was posted on Vesak Day (public hoiday in both countries) and came after media reports overnight that

— Tun said that he had cancelled the agreement on Monday,

— and S’pore said that it had not received official confirmation of the cancellation.

Had the letter the agreement cancelling even been sent, let alone drafted? Why must do everything to saka Tun? Thinking about it, since Tun has said that S’pore has yet to be told, looks like these guys will suck Tun’s XXXX while allowing anwar to bugger them even before they ask him for these actions.

Is there really na vneed to saka him? We survived his last premiership (22 years) in pretty good shape, while he now admits M’sia is now in a mess because of the actions of his handpicled successor.

As I said before I know very well the KL that Tun and Anwar were in charge of: I thrived in that environment. Their actions and inactions came to roost and haunt them personally and other M’sians after Najib became PM.Yet our anti-PAP types praise them as antidotes to the PAP.

By all remains praise the DAP* and the moderate Muslims that left PAS to form the National Trust Party (Amanah;Malay: Parti Amanah Negara), but be real about Tun and Anwar. They won a famous victory but it was a victory that owed a lot to the DAP and Amanah.

===============

*Though anti-PAP types won’t because Lim Guan Eng and his pa came to S’pore to “brief” our Harry when the DAP won Penang. More like “kowtow” joked an UMNO insider when I told him what Lim Jnr told a seminar at ISEAS in 2008 after meeting Harry.

 

Why I no ak the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods

In Internet, Media, Political governance on 29/04/2018 at 11:46 am

The problem about lies or “fake news” is who gets to decide what is or is not a lie or “fake news”.

In liberal democracies, even the president of the US cannot get his view of what is or is not a lie or “fake news” accepted by even a majority of the voters. There’s some sort of consensus (“conventional wisdom”) driven (manipulated?) by the elites and media about what is or is not a lie or “fake news” in which facts often play an important part.

In a one-party state (de facto or de jure), the ruling party decides what is or is not a lie or “fake news”

— Keeping power in a one-party state

— Would this happen in a one-party state?

— Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

The planned tackling of “fake news” is a smokescreen for muzzling further netizens, not juz cybernuts. The internet and social media has made it a lot easier for S’poreans to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP.

— Minister wants his cake and eat it/ PAP doesn’t get the Internet

— Ingratitude, uniquely S’porean? Blame the internet? Not really

— Us Netizens: Comancherios of the Internet?

This freedom (relative) to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP worries the PAP (juz like the CCP worries about the internet and social media in China), hence the plan to further muzzle the internet and social media.

“Warriors”, not “Wankers” / Worthless, Wayanging, Wanking NMPs

In Political governance on 18/08/2016 at 5:32 am

JBJ would have been proud of the WP MPs on Monday.

Three cheers for the WP. They are finally doing in this Parly what they failed to do in the last Parly, and in the process disappointing many of those who voted for them (self included).

They stood up and spoke out on a really bad piece of legislation. Low’s and Auntie’s speeches and the questions asked by the MPs made clear the BS about the changes to the laws on contempt of court that the PAP administration wanted.  The real issue was about controlling the flow of information in a defacto one-party state in the age of social and new media. This is something that even the CCP is grappling with in a de jure one-party state.

This was so unlike the Wankers’ Party of old who repeated avoided scoring open goals eg avoiding calling for the nationalisation of public tpt despite it being in the 2011 manifesto when the PAP administration was fighting three fires: trying to fix a broken public tpt system, while denying anything was wrong, and while spending public money to help the listed public tpt operators maintain profits.

Lots of open goals were avoided. No attempts on goal were even made. And it was a PAP MP that suggested nationalisation.

Looks like the WP has done some soul-searching and their elected MPs have moved on from being worthless, wayanging, wanking wannabe social workers, only interested in looking at their monthly bank statements, to become warriors. Let’s hope they keep this up, speaking out loud and clear when the PAP administration is doing wrong or trying to throw smoke.

Seems the results of GE 2015 and the challenge to Low in the WP’s internal elections have resulted in the WP “waking up its ideas”. More than one Lion Man now going by Monday’s debate.

The worthless, wayanging wankers in Parly are now the three NMPs who proposed changes to the bill (one of whom organised a petition and delivered it) and spoke out against the bill and then voted for the bill. This guy (quoted by TRE) got it right:

So much for signing a bloody petition. In the end, who were the 9 who opposed? Singapore, if you think you can count on NMPs to speak for you, see for yourself what happened today.

They will bring your petition to the House, withdraw it, and then vote in favour for the very Bill they were petitioning against, without any amendments to it whatsoever.

Very reliable folks indeed. Spineless. Pretentious. And so much less.

(From TRE)

Terry of TOC (The Online Citizen not Terry’s Online Channel) explained on FB the damage the three worthless, wayanging wankers caused by their two-faced actions:

The problem I see with such voting by the NMPS is that ppl in the general public will see that their well thought arguements have been answered by the law minister, which is why they would have voted yes to the bill without amendements. 

For the record, I’ve seen only one of the NMPs come out with a defence of why she voted for the bill. It’s a load of gibberish. She should have just sat down and shut up like the other two, And wait, like them, for her thirty pieces of silver.

PAPpies keep trying trick that’s obsolescent

In Political governance, Public Administration on 16/02/2016 at 3:27 pm

The internet, new media and social media makes the trick ever easier to detect. Yet they persist in treating this trick as a Hard Truth, even though when caught out it makes them look like Phey Yew Kok and friends. Why do they persist? That stupid and complacent isit? Why liddat?

The above were my tots when GIC’s ex-chief economist (now with the Institute of Policy Studies) highlighted this bit in SunT’s report on an environment assessment report which said the effect of soil testing works on animals and plants in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve could be kept to “moderate” levels if measures to reduce impact are strictly implemented when building MRT tracks in the area.

What does “moderate” mean? The roughly 1,000-page report, seen by The Sunday Times, said a moderate impact “falls somewhere in the range from a threshold below which the impact is minor, up to a level that might be just short of breaching a legal limit”.

Assistant Professor Chian Siau Chen of the civil and environmental engineering department at the National University of Singapore said there are usually five categories under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework: Major, moderate, minor, negligible and beneficial.

My FB avatar posted

Thanks for highlighting the scale. So Moderate comes after Major ((((( Reminds me of what Financial Times wrote: “The practice of “reservation” — giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading — was honed by medieval Jesuits ….

‘There is a problem with Jesuitical equivocation, as select committee hearings may show. It makes exponents look shifty if they are rumbled.” In the age of the internet the PAP govt should be learning new tricks, not try to use old tricks that no longer work.giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading

(Emphasis mine)

This reminded me about another recent incident where the literal truth misled and S’pore Technologies was made to look shifty.

Remember the story that we we had PRC parachute riggers?

The u/m appeared on a senior lawyer’s wall

“The SAF continues to fully employ its Riggers, particularly for key operations and training. In order to optimise our resources, we have outsourced the parachute-packing function to Singapore Technologies (ST)”.

Question : If the parachute-packing is outsourced to ST, what do the riggers do?

Answer : Dunno. Answer is (probably intentionally) obscure. One possibility is that the riggers check the parachutes – but the SAF’s answer is far from being a model of clarity.

Question : Has the outsourcing of packing to ST reduced the SAF’s need for riggers?

Answer : Almost certainly.

Question : Are there PRC nationals employed by ST to pack parachutes.

Answer : SAF doesn’t say. Who knows.

Question : Do ST packers have to jump with a chute they’ve packed themselves?

Answer : SAF didn’t say.

And

A very direct allegation (that parachute packing is now being done by PRC nationals) was made, and the answer was vague, and did not contain a denial…… Hmmmm.

Why didn’t the SAF simply state that no foreign nationals are employed to pack parachutes? I hope it’s ineptness in public relations rather than clumsy 1MDB style non-denials.

The rather sad thing is that the newspapers pick up on the SAF response and repeat it verbatim as news, without asking any follow up questions trying to understand what it really means in simple terms.

This is the ‘uncritical’ media culture we have … In today’s day and age, where Singapore is trying to promote risk taking and value creation, the newsmedia culture is somewhat outmoded ,,,

My FB avatar chirped:

Someone in another group informed of a deleted comment. It could explain why SAF aswered the way it did./// “I checked into this. Here’s what I was told:
“There are a couple of PRC Riggers who are under IWF (Integrated Work Force) and work for ST. These Riggers are US certified and will be certified again by the SAF if they have met the requirements and standards. Their pack jobs are certified by SAF Riggers who approve that the parachutes are ready and good for jump. They are only basic trained and perform their job according to their level.””///

The internet, new media and social media make giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading easier to catch and this makes exponents look shifty if they are rumbled. In the age of the internet, the PAP administration should be learning new tricks (like telling the tral truth, not just the literal truth), not try to use old tricks that no longer work like giving answers that are technically accurate but are misleading.

 

 

Social media & politics

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 30/09/2015 at 4:50 am

The Indian PM, a big fan and user of social media, said in California during his recent visit there:

— “When I came to government, I saw that one of the problems that governments have is that there is a big gap between the government and the people,” he said. “But with social media we have daily bonding.”

— “The strength of social media today is that it can tell governments where they are wrong and can stop them from moving in the wrong direction.”

I can imagine our PM* or some other PAP minister using the same language to explain to S’poreans and ang mohs why S’pore doesn’t need any Opposition in parly, and why S’poreans should treasure the unicorn of being a de-facto one-party state.

And I’m sure the Chinese Communist Party would say the same things in China.

But. Modi also said

“We used to have elections every five years and now we can have them every five minutes.”

Somehow I don’t think PM or the CCP would ever say this.

I’ll leave the final word on social media and politics to a disillusioned anti-PAP cyber warrior who I respect. He says social media is ineffective against claims made by the govt.
Looks like he’s still upset with the GE result. But he, unlike the cybernuts and Dr Chee, accept and respect the results.
——-
*Maybe PM should tell Tharman to stop cracking jokes about politics:

“He told reporters that the opposition plays a critical role in advancing the country. “It is important for the opposition to reflect on what happened – not just in terms of whether the electorate didn’t know better or the electorate made a mistake – but how they could have done better in their strategies,” he said.
“We need a more reflective attitude after each election, and on how the opposition can continue to play a constructive and positive role in Singapore politics, as they must.
Mr Tharman also acknowledged the presence of several new opposition candidates who failed to get elected, and hoped they would continue to be active in public life.
It is very good that we saw some new faces in the elections. Several very interesting new faces,” he said.
“I hope they continue to contribute to Singapore – even though they didn’t win – whether in politics or outside.”

But Tharman loves cracking jokes

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/property-tharman-trying-to-crack-jokes-again/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/tharman-trying-to-tell-jokes-again/

 

 

Why PAP should be afraid but not not too afraid

In China, Humour, Internet, Malaysia, Political governance, Vietnam on 10/03/2014 at 4:49 am

Paper warriors can cause serious problems for paper generals. Take heart Richard Wan, SgDaily, Terry Xu etc. And NSP should put more effort and time on online activities, rather than pounding the streets and climbing stairs, even though P Ravi of NSP gets great workouts: but Ravi, skip the teh tariks at the end. And the Chiams start an online presence.

Online activism can be an accurate indicator of where revolutions might take place next, according to University of Manchester research.

Argentina, Georgia, the Philippines and Brazil are claimed to be most at risk of upheaval, according to this measure.

The Revolution 2.0 Index* was developed last year and identified Ukraine as the most likely to see political upheaval.

This index sees revolution being forecast by computer experts rather than political analysts … It provides a different view of how regimes are put at risk by protest movements, looking at online factors rather than street demonstrations.

The index produces a risk factor based on the level of repression and the ability of people to organise protests online.

(http://www.bbc.com/news/education-26448710)

But Yaacob, MDA, and the ISD can still relax a little: The highest risk comes in countries where there are protests against perceived injustices – but where there is relative freedom online.

Err we knowthat S’poreans don’t like to sweat at Hong Lim: ask Gilbert Goh. (Alternative reason: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/gg-crashes-new-indian-chief-needed/)

So get the people out in their tens of thousands to Hong Lim Green and keep up the online volume, then sure can effect regime change. But fortunately for the PAP, only the LGBTs can get out the crowd. Aand then only once in a pink moon.

Still if PM and the ministers want to make sure they get to keep their mega-salaries then they should start sending study teams to  Ethiopia, Iran, Cuba and China: At the lowest end of this 39-country index are countries such as Iran, Cuba and China because there is a lower level of risk of revolution in repressive countries with tight controls over the internet.

Actually, it juz might be easier to ban Facebook and other forms of social media on the grounds that users waste time on them during office hours (all those cat photos that a certain social activist posts during office hours). Users are subversives, undermining the govt’s productivity drive, the aim of which is to make S’poreans richer slaves.

Talking about the Ukraine, professor Richard Heeks from Manchester University, the creator the index, says: “But social media has been the core tool used to organise protests and maintain them by letting protesters know where they can get nearby food, shelter, medical attention, and so on.

“It has spread word about violence and has garnered support and assistance from overseas.”

BTW, S’pore, Cambodia and Laos are not on the index but the rest of Asean is

The Philippines (4th)

M’sia (14th)

Indonesia (26th)

Vietnam (29th)

Thailand (33rd: err data was up to 2012)

Burma (35th)

———————————————————-

*The index combines Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net scores, the International Telecommunication Union’s information and communication technology development index, and the Economist’s Democracy Index (reversed into an “Outrage Index” so that higher scores mean more autocracy). The first measures the degree of Internet freedom in a country, the second shows how widely Internet technology is used, and the third provides the level of oppression.

 

 

S’pore’s paralympian & our “fact free” media & social media

In Media on 11/09/2012 at 6:40 pm

“You all know how free the Filipino media is; they can even be very free with the facts,” was a statement made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Having worked and lived in Manila, I can understand the sentiments behind the statement. The Filipino media does “invent” facts to fit the points they are trying to make. The media are free (and journalists have been murdered because someone powerful is upset) there, but hardly fair.

But having found out that Laurentia Tan, the paralympian, is based in England because of the facilities there, I can only shake my head in sadness and annoyance that our constructive, nation-building media, Yahoo! and all but one of the bloggers who raved on her performance and what it means to be a S’porean, failed to mention that fact.

She retains her S’porean nationality but otherwise she like the Chinese ping-pong gal Olympians moved on to better herself.

I’m not criticising her or her parents. They did what had to be done for her to get a better quality of life. But I’m criticising our “fact free” media and social media. The former for not telling us that she had lived in England for many yrs, and the latter (with one honourable exception) for talking rubbish, assuming that she was based in S’pore.

As Cherian Georger has written (no link*), bloggers here are dependent on the constructive, nation-building media for the facts. They rave and rant based on what the constructive, nation-building media.

———————–

*I disagree that our MSM journalists and editors are professional. As I’ve often pointed out, they have problems reporting financial and economic news that could be politically sensitive. They obviously don’t believe Goh Chok Tong. When he was PM, he talked at a MediaCorp dinner of a servile media doing the government no favours . Shortly afterwords, an inconvenient editor was removed.