bloggers watch what they say

was poking around xiaxue's blog the other day (yes, I do think it is very entertaining), and found a comment about some recent developments concerning singaporean bloggers. apparently a singaporean blogger closed down his blog under pressure from a*star - a singaporean government body. it seems that posts or comments on his blog were considered defamatory. lawsuits were mentioned but as of now, no-one really knows what happened. bottomline is, blogger criticized singaporean government agencies over their treatment of bonded students resulting in pressure from those agencies, leading to death of blog.

apparently this all started when he and another "bond breaker" agreed to be interviewed by the singaporean new paper. they basically stated that they broke their bonds because their respective agencies were inflexible and unreasonable. the psc scholar even stated that his experience has soured his identity as a singaporean. bad press for singapore. bad press for singaporean agencies that wish to bond promising students. then what? how do the agencies respond? I could'nt find any response from psc. maybe they did say something, which I think they should. after all we would like both sides of the story. it was a*star's reply that caused all the commotion. now we have both sides of the story. fair enough right? I assume that some people were incensed by the reply that they had to result in slander? no idea. this apparently led to the intimidation of bloggers resulting in multiple "shutdowns"? the 'free' western countries already hold a dim view on the freedom of speech available in singapore. why make it worse?

one thing I realized from all this is that bond breakers are stigmatized in singapore. the whole moral issue to serve one's country - 'bond breakers are greedy people who are just looking for a free lunch!' on one hand, why this stipulation? is it not enough to give needy singaporeans the opportunity to pursue their dreams? if in the end, they do not wish to serve in those agencies, why hold it against them? I would think that those who break their bonds do so because they now have the opportunity to achieve greater things. for themselves, yes, but they do so as singaporeans. they are increasing the international representation of singaporeans. and maybe once they have achieved their full potential they can now give back to singapore in more significant ways. say they become professors, high level execs, or some kinda big honcho overseas who then decides to collaborate with someone from singapore, or opens a branch in singapore, or helps establish research institutes in singapore, or helps singaporeans break into the international market, or even just promotes singapore. is that not enough? allowing them to break their bonds without alienating them may bring benefit later on. I would think that most of the bond breakers are grateful for their scholarships and will do what they can to give back to singapore when they can. why call them immoral and selfish? the agencies should just accept it that some of their scholars will 'run'. allowing them to do so, and maintaining an open line of communication will allow the agencies to contact them for future favours. after all, not everyone can afford to run because of the huge expense. I assume most scholars stay on to serve the terms of their bond. I've come across many malaysians who have broken their bonds with malaysian agencies. some were given the option to pay by installment, without interest. I guess these agencies decided to treat the contracts as interest-free loans for needy students. not a bad idea imho.

as for the whole coming down on the blogger issue, how many of us really believe everything they read on a blog? some people blog simply because they want to rant! and simply say what they want to because they need to vent! like how I bitch about work and inconsiderate people, and bad weather etc. of course that is different from slander which usually means knowingly making false accusations with the intent to injure. but many bloggers are not evil. a lot of people have misguided views of many things. some of these views may be held very firmly albeit wrongly. like say, 'the japanese government is the only government that distorts history.' is it better for someone to continue believing in that statement, or is it better for someone to express this view. once expressed, it now has the chance of being corrected. I think comments should always be allowed on blogs. it is always good to hear what someone else has to say. perhaps a*star should have just left a comment on that blog, or just ignored it. the hidden dealings just makes the situation worse. that said, we should all be civil. what is the use of name-calling and derogatory remarks? don't lah go beat up xiaxue's cab snatcher. also, blogs started as online journals. to record personal thoughts. and some people do show their real ugly selves in their personal blogs, like this one. apparently, the blog was supposed to be password protected - friends only supposedly. unfortunately for her, it is now public knowledge. reap what you sow.

what about anonymous blogs? like this one? many people blog to reveal what they really think. because they feel that those around them will not understand or treat them differently because of what they think. like being a republican in massachusetts, or being a trekkie, or letting your maid clean more than 1 house no, I'm not a trekkie and I don't have maid. what can I say? I feel more comfortable hiding in anonymity. kudos to those who reveal their identities! anyway, the thing is, the more diverse the views, the better right? as long as they are not blatantly evil lah.

anyway see what I've learned from reading xiaxue's blog? all thanks to huichieh. still, nothing beats tvsmith and his short satirical pieces, for people like me who has lost touch with home. if only each country has a site like that.