Tag: P.N. Balji

  • P N Balji: Ignore Calvin Cheng, We Don’t Need A Donald Trump In Singapore

    P N Balji: Ignore Calvin Cheng, We Don’t Need A Donald Trump In Singapore

    P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who is the former chief editor of TODAY newspaper, and a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

    It was the week that was worth shouting about. The Court of Appeal quashed the Home Minister’s decision to detain soccer bookie Dan Tan without trial and here is the rub – because he was not a threat to public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. The very words that were used to keep him in prison.

    Thank you, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. You have shown that there are Singaporeans who dare to scrutinise and even reject a Minister’s detention order under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act when it goes against the law.

    At about the same time came the Malaysian decision to kick Singapore out of the Malaysian League. Thanks, Malaysia. If we needed one good reason to make all of us unite under our very own soccer League, this is it.

    And our National Gallery, home to the largest repository of South-east Asian art, opened its doors adding another nail on popular talk that this country is a cultural desert.

    Thank you, Lee Boon Yang. It was you as minister of Communication, Information and the Arts who pushed against the views of some naysayers to make this another pride of Singapore.

    To spoil the party, out came the bulldozer without brakes Calvin Cheng. He went on his Facebook page advocating that children of terrorists should be annihilated to stop them from taking revenge.

    I have known the former NMP for many years now. The last time I met him was when we were on a panel to discuss this year’s General Election.

    The moderator goaded Cheng into wading into controversial territory, but he didn’t take the bait. Instead, he made his points well with no overt expression of rancour.

    It is hard to believe that it is the same Cheng who went on a “kill the children” tirade.

    My brief meetings with him revealed a bright, young man with strong views against those whose Singapore narrative differed from the official version.

    But each time I offered him a different way of looking at things, he would grudgingly nod his head.

    But when he goes into the lonely online world, with no one to check him, he becomes a very different personality.

    And that is what happened when he went on a verbal rampage with words like “traitorous” hurled at his opponents.

    To try and get a better measure of the man, I spoke to his former secondary school principal.

    Harphal Singh said: “Even in school Calvin was opinionated and contentious. I remember once incident very well. We were on a bus getting ready to go on an excursion. Calvin refused to give up his seat for one of the teachers, even when asked to. He felt there was no good reason for him to do so.

    “That is Calvin. He always wants to know why. ”

    Singh felt Cheng had clearly crossed the line with his comments on the children of terrorists.

    “I am sure there are others who have the same view but to articulate them so publicly and in uncivil language, especially when he is a member of an organisation whose duty it is to advocate proper conduct in the online space should not be condoned.”

    Cheng said he was deliberately provocative. But he is also the kind of personality who when provoked can become nasty.

    The best way to deal with such people is to ignore them. Deprive them of the oxygen of publicity, a phrase famously crafted by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at a time when the world was witnessing a series of bloody hijackings of planes.

    That is what modern-day parents do when their children use unsavoury language. They turn the other way. One parent said she has seen great results with her son.

    In many ways, Cheng is like this modern-day child who wants to see how far he can push the borders of decency.

    We don’t need a Donald Trump in our country. All of us will do well to pretend that this upstart called Calvin Cheng doesn’t exist.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • SMU Apolitical Team GE2015 Guide Launch & Panel Discussion: First Class Voters Needed Too

    SMU Apolitical Team GE2015 Guide Launch & Panel Discussion: First Class Voters Needed Too

    On the 31th of August, SMU Apolitical team held a book launch event for its second publication titled A Guide to General Elections in Singapore (GE 2015 Edition) edited by alumnus Grace Morgan. Afterwards, a panel discussion followed the launch was graced by the following panelists:

    • Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow from NUS’ Institute of Policy Studies
    • Eugene Tan, Assoc Professor of Law from SMU
    • Jack Lee, Asst Professor of Law from SMU
    • P.N. Balji, Former editor of TNP and TODAY

    This is our write-up on the points discussed by the panelists on the day, that we felt were essential and learning points relevant to what we’ve been writing on Offbeat Perspectives. 

    What the book covers
    The booklet is a non-partisan informational guide for voters partaking in the upcoming GE2015. It comprehensively covers the terms used in Singapore’s political landscape to details of the electoral process and political parties in the field.

    The booklet is the second of a series of primers introducing public law concepts to the general public in an easy-to-understand way. (directly adapted from the booklet synopsis)

    Panel Discussion

    Dr. Gillian Koh [Source]

    Dr. Gillian Koh inaugurated the discussion with three points she feel that voters should take into consideration:

    1. Matching party’s promises (from the last election) to their performance
    2. Citizens’ demand for an efficient and diverse government for check-and-balance purpose
    3. GE2015 may be the watershed election that will “filter” the opposition down to a few prominent parties

    She recognized the pluralistic views among the younger generations, as well as the high-income and better-educated citizens, to want to have alternative voices within the government.

    Also, she considered that voters’ decisions may be swayed by their emotions during the rally experiences. She explicates the rationality and the importance of looking at government’s policy development over the years to vote for the party who will be able to serve its people well.

    Prof. Jack Lee [Source]

    Prof. Jack questioned the ambiguous nature of politics-related laws, drawing attention to:

    • Defamation Act
    • Section 33 of the Films Act Ban: banning “party-political films” directed towards one’s political end (one gets charged merely having the film content to be related to politics?)
    • Electoral laws and advertising (potential pitfalls for unwary parties)

    He also mentioned that it is not allowed for parties or anyone from the general public to conduct opinion polls among voters to seek out information of the party they’re voting for. One-to-one message transmission is allowed but not via mass/social media. A food for thought raised by him was whether this stifles the opposition’s opportunity to garner votes.

    P.N. Balji [Source]

    P.N. Balji discussed about the media coverage on Singapore elections.

    Firstly, he noted that the Workers’ Party received a considerable amount of media publicity during GE2011 (where it is a good situation). In years to come, media coverage will become “bolder*”.

    *There weren’t any clear definition given to what it means for media coverage to be “bolder”. We interpreted that it means for mainstream media to become more receptive to cover both opposition and the ruling political parties during the election season

    Secondly, the way the government manages the media sources has its impact on the professionalism and the sophistication of media content. It is also important to ensure ethical news reporting (i.e. truthful), as exemplified in the case of Chinese Daily’s wrongful allegations against WP candidate Daniel Goh [read about the case here].

    Thirdly, social media plays an important role in today’s political landscape. There is an increasing number of players – some lie in the extremes (either pro- or anti-government) but there are certainly others who hold onto balanced views in their articles. The biggest problem encountered by these players is the lack of resources (manpower, time and cost) to conduct investigative journalism which is critical step to obtain objective information. There is also a lack of credible platforms for the government to put across their message to the citizens.

    Balji illustrated the relationship between mainstream and independent media to be one of an interdependent one. While the independent relies on the mainstream for firsthand information like facts, the mainstream sources “surveil” and possibly model popular topics after independent sources to interest its readers.

    Prof. Eugene [Source]

    Being the moderator of the discussion, Prof. Eugene initiated the discussion and occasionally commented on the points mentioned by the above-panelists. He agrees with Dr. Gillian that GE2015 may see some opposition parties as being “irrelevant”, screening them down to a significant few. When asked about media, he expressed that there are “no such thing” as independent media since most of them would have to rely on funding from somewhere. He considered about the “illusion*” of independent media that most of us would have.

    *The illusion wasn’t further elaborated by Prof. Eugene. We interpreted it as the objectivity of media, that there shouldn’t be a preconceived notion among us that allindependent sources are objective. Prof. Eugene added that nevertheless, we should refer to both mainstream and independent sources for information to form an unprejudiced perception of the situation.

    Dr. Gillian then ended the panel discussion with some meaningful words on voting:

    What we need are first-class voters, not a first-world parliament. That would also mean we’d need to have a first class game (diversity within the government and unbiased media sources).

     

    Source: https://offbeatperspectives.wordpress.com