Reply to La Nausee: Why we find TOC’s agenda suspicious

http://etrepoursoi.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/the-sounding-of-a-tocsin-blogosphere-in-a-bog/

In the article above, la nausee listed 10 recent articles by TOC’s Chief Editor Remy Choo and gave them a score of +1.6 (using an informal, subjective rating of -5 to +5, where -5 means “extremely pro-PAP”, +5 means “extremely anti-PAP”).

He concluded this shows “the content of Mr. Choo’s posts to be slightly anti-PAP“, and therefore we can “leave aside what his personal convictions are, or whose payroll he might be on.”

Perhaps La Nausee is still confused over the definition of a “PAP mole” by ridiculing himself with such an oxymoron. A PAP mole must be “anti-PAP” or it will not qualify to be a mole in the first place!

Our suspicions of TOC are not based solely on the background of the members of its Editorial team. We agree that being associated with the PAP does not make one less “independent”. However, we have to seriously question why certain prominent members of the establishment are willing to lend their name to an ordinary “Citizen’s blog” which is “mildly critical” of the government.

First, the founder of The Online Citizen is Mr Andrew Loh, currently a WP member. He was well-known as a PAP member/supporter in Sammyboyforum in which he pledged support to PM Lee and condemned “opposition losers” as illustrated in the posts we have pasted here below. For whatever reasons known only to himself, he suddenly deceided to join WP under very “mysterious circumstances” somewhere in end 2004. And strangely, he decided to pass TOC’s ownership to Choo Zheng Xi last year after TOC was being decried as a WP blog !

Now, let’s put Choo under closer scrutiny. He was an elected member of the Buona Vista Youth Executive Committee which we all know come under the People’s Association another quasi-government organization. He is currently a year 2 undergraduate in Law at NUS and was a Dean’s lister in his first year. He also claimed he aspired to join the civil service upon graduation. All these personal details were not documented on his profile on TOC itself. Why should this important information be left out deliberately unless he has something to hide ? As a top law student, Choo himself has a promising future ahead of him and is potential “PAP candidate” favored by the headhunters. Would he jeopardize this by offending the establishment thereby leaving an indelible black mark on his records ?

Next, we move on to the most controversial figure on TOC’s Editorial Team: Its 2nd-in-Command Young PAP member Mr Eprahim Loy. Mr Loy is not merely an ordinary YPAP member. Foreign Minister George Yeo wrote frequently on his own personal blog which was widely publicized in the papers and this attests to his close links with the PAP “big guns”. As a young budding politician, he would have considered the implications thoroughly before joining TOC and might even have received tacit “support” from his superiors for doing so. How many YPAP members do you see sitting on the editorial teams of anti-establishment blogs such as Sg_Review, Singapore Rebel, Yawning Bread and Sgpolitics ? Surely that rings a bell.

We have been following the TOC’s articles for the past one year and we felt it is nothing more than “recycled hogwash” of the Straits Times Review. The PAP does allow criticism of its policies and is in fact fairly tolerant as long one does not touch on sensitive topics such as the “integrity” of the government, civil service, election system and judiciary.

Let’s take a look at the last 10 articles on TOC:

1. 5 February 2008: NKF – more in reserves than during the scandal.

2. 4 February 2008: Improving Singapore’s public transport system – a commuter’s perspective.

3. 4 February 2008: Leong Sze Hian on rising inflation.

4. 2 February 2008: Weekend TOC: Did you know ?

5. 31 January 2008: How mean and means testing be ?

6. 30 January 2008: Means testing or comprehensive medical insurance ?

7. 28 January 2008: Police: foreigners are not allowed to complain.

8. 27 January 2008: Bureaucratic muddle leads to canning of International Fringe Festival event.

9. 26 January 2008: My future as a Singapore Citizen.

10. 22 January 2008: Workfare statistics ?

As we can see from the above topics, these “mildly critical” articles of the government can easily pass the censorship at the ST Forum and be published which is the case with many of Mr Leong Sze Hian’s articles. Readers are “treated” with a “feast of dissent” which amounts no more than a small outlet for ventilation while keeping them ignorant of the real problems at the same time.

TOC editors have been turning a blind eye to many issues brought up by other socio-political blogs such as SDP’s legal wrangles with PAP leaders, reform of the election system, investments made by Temasek and GIC etc. Are these too “sensitive” to pass the censorship of the PAP members on TOC ?

The blogosphere is the last bastion of free speech in Singapore and we are not surprised that the PAP is determined to establish a foothold on it and exert its influence and hegemony eventually as it did with the mainstream media. In our next article, we shall study and explore the “quiet counter-insurgency” that is already taking place in blogosphere.