I find it quite amazing that the editors of Singazine.com would find it fit to accuse another blog aggregator, SG Daily, of being guilty of censorship (see attachment below at the end of this post).
SG Daily, in case readers are unaware, is one of the longest standing blog aggregators, specializing in aggregating blog posts of a socio-political nature that pertain to developments in Singapore.
As far as I can tell, SG Daily’s selection is very diverse and no one can rightfully accuse them of practising censorship.
I wonder why Singazine.com would accuse another blog aggregator of practicing censorship.
Perhaps unlike Singazine.com, SG Daily exercises some degree of editorial judgment from time to time, and refrains from linking to blog posts that clearly have an agenda of causing opposition parties to become disunited.
This is unlike Singazine.com which actually takes pride in highlighting posts by notmysdp.org, a blog site clearly run by agent provocateurs who are out to sow mistrust, discord and animosity in Singapore’s opposition camps.
Exercising some degree of editorial judgment is NOT the same as censorship. Every blog aggregator has the right to exercise editorial judgment in accordance with the site owner’s own value system. No one has the right to demand that a blog aggregator follow his or her approach, which may not suit the blog aggregator at all.
Singazine.com should realize that freedom of speech describes the ideal social contract between a government and its people. It does NOT describe the social contract between private organizations, which have the right to set their own rules and agenda and to deny a voice to all those whom they dislike.
I am glad Singazine.com has announced they are leaving the blog aggregating industry. Clearly they do not have the spurs of political maturity stuck into their hides.
The following is a2ed's personal response (as a member of the singazine team) to Ng E-Jay's views on Singazine - posted as a comment on his site. The 'postscript' section is added on for clarification. A team-approved 'closing summation' will be posted tomorrow.
The best ‘consensus’ that can be reached by SDP and others is that they be open and receptive to critique.
Hiding behind the idea of ‘unity’ should not come at the price of truth and progress amongst the opposition. I’d personally trust those whom are open to critique, and especially those whom purport to represent the oppositional voice. But i wouldn’t trust those who, for the sake of ‘unity’, stifle critique and ignore it as evidence of critics being ‘pro-pap’. That’s ridiculous, short-sighted and fascist. It brings to mind George Bush’s, ‘You’re either with us or against us’ approach toward reality. Isn’t that what the party in power did in the past, and to some degree in the present? Ng E-Jay ought to take a look at how democratically advanced nations do it, i.e. the UK. The way he is going on about it, he seems more like an unwitting product of the PAP as opposed to being a true perspectival alternative.
Anyway, as a member of the singazine team, along with MM, cloudyV1, simiTC, and senor Fifi, even though we personally may not agree with the views of some bloggers and TR and think that some are just downright racist (via oversight) or xenophobic , we still link them and give them prominence via ’singazine feature’.
Our own views are refined via the consideration, and, perhaps, refutation of contradictory views. That is what brings about consensus and unity amongst the members of the singazine team. It is then that we can engender a true unity amongst such progressive minds whilst refining our acuity via the sharpening stone of contradiction. If we take pride in featuring Not My SDP, Solo Bear, amongst others, we do so in knowing that we are open enough to considering counterpositional thought. We had hoped that message was clear, but, it seems, to good little confucians like Ng E-jay, a reiteration of that point is required.
As for Singaporedaily, unless you’re self-absorbed, it’s no secret that they do a fair bit of censoring. SimiTC once wondered why lots of thought-worthy articles were being left out of Sgdaily. They may be ‘privately-run’, but once they present themselves as ‘pro-democracy’ they owe the public a duty to illustrate it. If not, they should rename their site, ‘MYsingaporedaily’ as opposed to a nationally representative ‘SINGAPOREdaily’.
Additionally, I personally have wondered why Ng, Seelan, amongst others who link them, are not taking issue with their ‘racial preference’ in ‘daily chiobu’, not to mention its sexist nature – and i wonder if they even realised it before I wrote about it a while back on another site. Even privately owned organisations, companies, etc, in the UK make it a point to be racially representative, and especially if they are political in nature. The British population, in general, would not stand for that which the opposition here pass off as a non-issue. Thus, my personally terming them democratic fascists.
Perhaps Ng et al just want to preserve ‘unity’ amongst the opposition even if it comes at the price of egalitarianism and democracy. If that’s his brand of ‘unity’, we might as well stick to the PAP as the difference between them and the opposition is that between factions within the selfsame party.
I will post an (approved by the team) closing summation at my own site – at the request of the singazine team – in a day or so.
postscript: by 'confucian', I refer to the tendency to play 'follow the leader', and value harmony and unity in itself without considering the basis upon which it is founded. That is one of the core features of Confucianism-cum-Legalism. And, one doesn't have to be Chinese to be Confucian. It's a matter of perspective, not race. One ought to wonder why the government, a couple of decades back begin to criticise 'western values' in favour of Confucianism. But, in truth, a Confucian society is not really a 'Confucian' society. A 'Confucian' society is actually the attempt to cope with the consequences of a Legalist and top-down approach toward the relationship between the government and the people. In that, the term, 'Confucian society' detracts one's attention from the Legalist basis for it existing as such. That, in a way, enlists the people, over time, to defend the battlements beneath which is enthroned the Legalist.