TR EMERITUS

作者:冀居·谢 我不谅解中文报为什么一直要把“astroturfing”翻译成“人工草皮”而不是它真正的意思。 根据维基百科，astroturf和astroturfing是严格区分的，前者是指货真价实的“人工草皮”，后者是指“假造民意运动”。就好比 pampers是纸尿片的品牌，结果很多人把pampers认定是“纸尿片”这个意思，这是商业社会给现代人造成的混淆；就好比astroturf、 xerox、yo-yo、kerosene都正式或非正式地成为通用商标（genericized trademark）了。 照我看这是一种愚民手段，让“人工草皮”继续保持神秘感，而不是大家都熟悉的“造假民意”。因为在本地，谁不知道以“民意、基层、草根、公民咨询、社区”为名是哪些组织、后面的操手是谁、自诩深知heartlander之意的政党是哪一家？ “前资深”吴俊刚的这篇《真假草皮》我还真爱不释手，因为近年来“早报言论”几乎成为“中国言论”，难得见到这么一篇讨论本地事物的文章。 早报吴俊刚引用早报林方伟对astroturfing的定义： 『它指的是一种网上的造假现象，是一种由广告、公关公司、政治团体所发起或操纵，但在过程中却技巧性地掩盖真正的幕后源头，让社会大众错以为是民众或社会草根基层所发起，反映民间心声和意见的假草根现象』 ——最主要是咬定幕后必有主使，有个惊天大阴谋，所以不可能是一种人同此心心同此理的有感而发现象。 加上他自己对互联网的描述： 『互联网开创了一个无垠的新媒体世界。这个虚拟世界无奇不有，既给人方便，也制造了很多令人混淆、真假难辨的信息。网上有浩瀚的信息资源，也充满了各种各样的 信息垃圾。……网上的论坛一大堆，为网络使用者提供了几乎是没有边际的讨论空间，由于随时随地可以上网，人们也很容易发表一些随兴的意见，由于不必用真实 姓名，人们可以隐藏身份。许多别有用心者也就趁虚而入，肆无忌惮地发表各种不负责任的言论，虚假的、冒犯性的、毁谤性的，不一而足。因此，网络上言论垃圾 充斥泛滥。这一切均假言论自由之名以行。这是网络时代令人无可奈何的现实。』 在吴的笔下，互联网就好像下水道那样黝暗污秽，虽然他没咬定不会找到钻石或者珍珠，但是身历其境的人必须和水中那些暧昧的块状浮游物不期而遇，就足以令你退避三舍了。 然而吴的笔锋一转，在文章的下半部倒批评起“我方”来了，主要有三点： 『【1】因此，个人觉得，要遏制人工草皮的进一步泛滥和混淆视听，除了提醒网民必须练就一对金睛火眼和培养独立思考的能力，还是得从广开言路和确保言路畅通着手，鼓励人们走正道，提倡正面的、负责的、有依有据、无私无惧和光明正大的言论，鼓励人们积极通过主流媒体和正常反馈渠道发表心声，传达意见，既能正确地反映民 情，谈论国是，批评政策，也能给民选政府提出各种利国利民的建设性意见。 【2】而政府部门则必须切切实实做到认真对待各种反馈，并及时妥善处理，不能只是马虎应付，把处理民众的反馈和意见，纯然当作聊备一格的公关活动，一概只作三言两语和公式化的答复，给人留下没诚意和打官腔的恶劣印象。 【3】在一些国家（包括民主国度），主流媒体被民众视为官方喉舌，也因此失去了为民喉舌的信誉。在这种情形下，主流媒体不受民众信任或被唾弃并不奇怪。不信任也会 导致言路的阻塞，人们在信不过主流媒体的情形下，自然就会更多地转向新媒体。这是我们应该竭力避免的。为此，维护主流媒体的独立性和专业性是非常重要的。 主流媒体如果能够让真草皮有广阔的生长和呼吸空间，假草皮的“用武之地”自会相应缩小。』 这样一来，他前面的逻辑就开始“矛盾”起来了，“假草皮”的那些言论，如果“积极通过主流媒体和正常反馈渠道发表心声，传达意见”，它就变成没有主儿了，而且也不plastic，成了真草？ 政府如果有诚意、不打官腔，假草就倏然变成真草，有主也会变成没主。 主流媒体如果不再“御用”，那些“绿塑胶”换个舞台亮相就“直八”了。 这样的文章不止“龟笑鳖无尾”，而且有点酸葡萄心理，“前资深”是妒忌“够力”的言论都在新媒体出现吗？ 来源：大马论坛  Read More →

The 24 year old lady who was the victim of YPAP member Mark Chow in his second molest case has written about her traumatic experience on her blog. Calling herself as "Shirley Zhuang", she described Mark as an "asshole" who should be locked away in prison, if not a mental hospital for good. According to information posted on his blog, Mark is a YPAP member of Pasir Ris-Punggol South and was nominated for Spirit of Enterprise Awards. Mark’s YPAP membership was not reported in the press. The case occurred in 2006 when Mark Shirley for an interview as the owner of a model agency. He then told her that he had to “examine” her body as a “standard” protocol. When Shirley stripped to her underwear inside a unisex toilet, Mark put his left hand into her bra and caressed her breast. Below is an excerpt of what Shirley wrote on her blog: "On the first day I made contact to join his agency, he asked me to be his gf in the first 5 minute after i see his stupid face on this earth. In year 2006, Mark Chow is already obese and distorted. Which girl in the right mind wouldn't get a nasty shock. He kept pinching my backside like a horny Kopitiam 60 year old Ti Ko Pek. Then he told me it was mandatory in the modeling industry to check out my bod. I already thought it was fishy. He got me to strip down to my lingerie for a make believe FHM assignment and he caressed my breast inside my brassieur! I pushed his hands away. He even tested the water and ask me to strip naked. I rejected him OUTRIGHT and I was already angry but I did not know what to do, I was so young! When I left the stupid pub, he pestered me like a horny prick to give him a farewell kiss or else he wouldn't let me go home. He wanted me to go to his place. I did not want to make a scene. So I relented reluctantly to just a 'kiss' and almost threw myself into a taxi to escape this slimy cockroach. Yuck!" Mark was earlier fined $6,000 for molesting a woman by touching her breasts, buttocks and calves. District Judge Sarjit Singh said in his verdict that since the touch of the chest was a “fleeting” one, a “stiff” fine would do. Read rest of Shirley's blog posting here.   Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans.   Related articles: >> Mark Chow admits to second molest charge >> Mark Chow escapes jail term >> Mark Chow convicted of molest  Read More →

Your Excellency Mr. Githu Muigai, UN Special Rapporteur on Racism 22 April 2010 Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances in Singapore Welcome to Singapore and thank you for meeting with Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD). We like to highlight the main points in written form below and articulate examples during our face-to-face meeting. Overview In 1992, Choo Wee Khiang who was then People's Action Party Member of Parliament, made disparaging remarks about Indians and "Little India". He told Parliament: "One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around." Race exerts a marked influence upon public policy in Singapore. The PAP government`s race related policies has resulted in a high consciousness of an individual`s race. The main example is the statement of race on Singaporean identity cards. This accentuates racial categorization and gives rise to racism and racial discrimination. Existence of discrimination and intolerance PAP government approach to race　is one of `tolerance` and frames it within the ideas of multiculturalism and meritocracy which are contested notions in Singapore. The PAP government is nevertheless expected to use the Singapore visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism to focus mainly on its `experiences and efforts at combating racism and racial discrimination` and its `policies to encourage racial and religious tolerance and harmony`. We expect the UN Rapporteur in return to highlight some of these as `good practices to be shared by other States`. However this does not mean racism and discrimination are non-existent in Singapore hence this is where SFD`s focus will be. We will like to draw your attention to some of the issues below. Racialist Policies and its representatives Several of the PAP government`s key policies surrounding immigration, language and public housing are viewed by ethnic minorities in Singapore as being in favour of the majority Chinese. Racially-motivated national policies include the HDB ethnic quota system, ostensibly to prevent estates turning into ethnic ghettos, but it discriminates against minority race families from living in areas of their choice, and also redistributes anti-PAP votes, as the racial minorities are traditionally seen to be pro-opposition voters. The GRC system is also ostensibly designed to give minority representation in parliament, but is a law that discriminates against fair elections, resulting in less opposition candidates contesting since its implementation. The hegemony of the PAP in government, through an electoral system that it has designed to ensure its own dominance, also does not make its ethnic MPs the sole policy representatives for the respective ethnic communities in Singapore. Ill formulated immigration policy Recently, the PAP government`s ill formulated immigration policy in its pretext `to tackle falling birth rates` has also created tensions between foreign workers, permanent residents, new citizens and Singaporeans. Of special concern is the policies of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in the way it issues employment pass and work permits and how it apportions foreign labour from different countries into the different sectors of the economy. We want to highlight that MOM hides behind a `country specific` policy to mask what is essentially a race based policy. This is an area where transparency and accountability is needed and we would like the Special Rapporteur to pay great attention to it and raise it with the Ministry of Manpower during this visit. Discussion on Race relations The PAP government constrains discussion of race issues by legislation. Instead it uses its access to media to run one sided information campaigns marketing Singapore as a model of racial harmony. In actual fact, the PAP government legislates prohibitions, such as the Sedition Act, against its citizens engaging in any public discourse of race and religion. For example even at Speaker`s Corner public discourse on race and religion are outlawed and `infringements` prosecuted. Additionally, it employs negative campaigning (via the media) against groups and individuals who highlight and raise race related issues. As a result, there is little critical debate and discussion on racism, inter-cultural tension and disaffection in Singapore. Some of this discussion is shifting onto the Internet however it is still not mainstreamed. Other forms of discrimination We also want to highlight other forms of discrimination such as those suffered by: 1  Foreign workers, PR and new citizens 2  People with various forms of disabilities 3  The elderly when it comes to employment 4 Civil and political activists International Conventions on Racism One of the key issues put to us is that Singapore has not signed and ratified United Nation's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966). And that Singapore is still not a signatory party to United Nation's Amendment to article 8 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1992). We like to ask the UN Rapporteur what is the status with regards to Singapore and these International Conventions? And if he will be raising this issue with representatives of the PAP government as Singaporeans want to know where their country under the management of the PAP government stands on this issue. Future UN Missions to Singapore In the lead up to this UN mission, there has been little awareness locally that the Rapportuer will be meeting representatives from academia, civil and political society. We note that such meetings have now been taking place and will take place some more over the course of this mission. There are individuals and groups who would still like to meet with the UN Rapportuer and we urge that where feasible this is facilitated. We also want to highlight that there has been little cross-communication between these different groups. We hope in the future there will be more advance notice so that more prior cross-communications within the non-governmental sector can take place in order to better prepare and responded to future UN missions. Attendance at UN Meetings We note that the findings of the Rapporteur will be publicly presented before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva (in June 2011) and the UN General Assembly in New York (in November 2011). We would like to know how SFD and other individuals and groups from Singapore`s civil and political society can attend/observe or speak where appropriate at those meetings. Credibility of this UN Mission While Singaporeans are optimistic in seeking to engage the UN and its representatives, (this can be discerned by the interest shown by various non-governmental individuals and groups to meet the Rapportuer) they are at the same time concerns that after the mission nothing will happen. We hope the Rapporteur will provide the appropriate assurances to Singaporeans at the-end-of-mission press conference. Further and most importantly we hope your report to the UN does justice by accurately reflecting the voices of the discriminated in Singapore. The credibility of the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism`s mission will depend on this. Other Missions to Singapore SFD would like to ask what other UN missions are planned for Singapore? What other missions can the PAP led Singapore government be expected to invite the UN to undertake. Please take note that there is a great desire among Singaporeans for an independent election observation mission. We hope the framework we have provided in this submission can help you contextualise some of your findings during this mission and help you in organising your submission to the UN. The examples provided in this report and those verbalized during our meeting are not meant to be exhaustive. Please supplement them with the other examples of racism and discrimination you will hear from those you meet while in Singapore. We wish you a successful mission.     Yours sincerely,   Dr. James Gomez Mr. Martyn See Ms Rachel Zeng Mr. Seelan Palay   (On behalf of Singaporeans for Democracy)  Read More →