TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

Thank you for your enlightening insights again!

I was quite amused that what goes behind the curtains have been revealed in such an ironic way!

The two parties, one aspired to be "Independent Media" and the other talk about "Media Credibility and openness" could do such things behind the scenes! Maybe such irony could happen in Singapore where everyone has been conditioned in thinking that such practices are "common" for journalism! A very misguided mindset I believe.

I do not know Viswa well but such incident will definitely create quite a bad taste in my mind. As for TOC, I would just wish it wasn't what you have painted it to be but just let the happenings and actions speak for itself.

Alas! Singaporeans should really relearn what Independent Journalism is all about.

Goh Meng Seng

Both TOC founders and Viswa are actually cut from the same cloth. They are both nationalistic in style and approach. They are both keen to be socially responsible and want to be part of the political process but lack the political savvy that allows both of them to be manipulated.

TOC is the second experiment after Talking cock was sanctioned by the authorities. The audience for the former was limited as the political satire and sarcasm was not understoood by the majority and it served as a relief valve for the the politically agitated but in small doses.

TOC founders have their origins with people who were and are associated with the PAP either in PAP sponsored grassroots organisations or have expressed favourable PAP sentiments. Very much doe eyed and firmly patriotic but politically naive. The Govt knows that a vehicle like TOC is necessary to fill a void where the youth and growing influx of western influenced citizens baulk at the thought that alternative views are not carried in a modern society. They know that if TOC does not exist, others will fill the avoid and these people may operate from loactions that cannot be reached. These entities may actually be neutral or anti-establishment. TOC has served well in this respect. It has covered controversies and therefore satiated the appetite for seemingly "neutral" views. This does not mean that people who contribute to TOC in terms of articles are doe eyed as well. Some are there for their own agenda in view of the reach. Of course, the other main benefit of TOC is the ability by the authorities to corral potential dissidents who are drawn to the "kelong" by the bright lights. Even a person like Kairulanwar Zaini who has high political acumen is drawn as egos are hard to control and the lack of any other vehicle is an issue.

Viswa was never politically savvy and during his Uni days spent time on art and drama. A decent individual who desires to do the right thing, he clearly has mismanaged this affair. SBC/TCS and other singapore broadcast media Journalists were never journalist in the first place and none was vetted. Its was expected to carry news but not political discussion. That was addressed with the appointment of Debra Soon who is an establishment figure via her father. Thus the Balji / Deb interview over the Aware Incident. Clearly Viswa assumed that he has journalistic credentials.

Viswa knew that TOC was establishment endorsed and wrongly assumed that like all establishment endorsed media like the SPH, editorial will take care of naive scribes. It did not occur to him that no establishment individual provides a view, an interview or comments to TOC as they know that editorial folks have not be trained.

Political naievty of Viswa is clearly evident by his letter to TOC where he reveals himself in such a bad light. As Chao clearly points out - its an irony when his speech was on transparent media and he himself is gagging the press.

If he was politically savvy, he would have sent a reply to TOC to be published where he could have pointed that the article was quoted out of context, did not reflect the spirit of his speech etc and left it at that.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, you have captured the essence of this episode by your statement below. Very accurate. The irony is indeed outstanding.

I was once told never to give flowers to monkeys as they have no clue what to do with it. Both the monkeys have screwed themselves good and proper. I am sure the relevant authorities will have a chat how to avoid another similar crisis.

I was quite amused that what goes behind the curtains have been revealed in such an ironic way!

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

You really should stop accusing people of lacking "integrity" and even "journalistic integrity" when at the end of the day they are just a hard working crew trying their best.

It was an exclusive interview as admitted by Visawan, He refused to have his comments in any form reported by the main stream media but allowed it to be carried by the alternative media.

Secondly a closed door session, invite only private event, implies a certain degree of privacy for both public speakers and participants, to allow them to be a little freer. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that this EVENT was public and for public consumption, and I certainly hold the view that if a speaker wants everything off the record then all at the event should be honorable and not publicize his views publicly in any form.

Visawan could have stated clearly within the seminar what was off the record and what was on the record. He could have but did not but chose instead to decide on what he wanted on or off the record after the event was over. That was definitely within ground rules.

Finally Lets not confuse "censorship" of Mee Siam Mai Hum and " Fixing the opposition' with a decision by a public figure to keep certain issues or statement out of the public record especially in a private invite only event. The email only serves to clarify the issue for those who understand the context of Chatnam House rules, for those who can't well it does not matter anyway because they see no need to respect the private space.



Locke

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

The agreement was between a journalist and a speaker talking about having a more open mainstream media. I wonder why the irony escapes you that the speaker initiated an avenue to prevent a report of the event to be made.

It speaks volumes of the speaker and what he is made of because it begs the question, did he really believe in what he said in his speech and subsequent Q&A session.

Does mainstream media only defined as outside of the internet? That cannot be the case because even the 154th has an online presence. Does mainstream media defined as those that have both online and non online presence? What about those that only have a non online presence?

It's all a bunch of nonsense. It is plainly clear that someone wants to control the media and has succeded but did so miserably. A truly silly debacle by someone wanting to pretend to be smart but only ended in showing what a small man he truly is.

When the country needs information to be freely available on all fronts we have an NCMP coming forth to prevent it. This cuntry is indeed for the selfish and drama mamas. You all know that if we had a freer press, the pappies would be history a long time ago.

Don't let such acts by a non-pappy go untouched. They have no moral high ground with which to stand. All they have is the media to hide.

If only Tang Liang Hong could have his say on this episode.

 

[scroobal]

I think you need to read carefully Viswa's post, TOC reply and the article by the TOC chap. This was not about the agreement. There are always disagreement over verbal and written agreement. You have completely missed the underlying drama.

Here is a clue - the role of host.

Regardless of what Viswa as requested to, if there was an agreement between the two, then it must be respected. If TOC finds it not acceptable, they should not have agreed to it in the first place.

This is not a coverage of a public event therefore any agreement binds. Same goes with exclusive interviews etc. If you don't put your rules in, anyone can quote you out of context.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

for the sake of completeness...the TOC article that sparked off the brouhaha

Mainstream media needs to rebuild broken trust, says Viswa Sadasivan
Friday, 28 August 2009, 5:50 pm | 1,646 views
Fang Shihan

“If there’s anyone from the ISD (Internal Security Department) here, you don’t have to identify yourself,” Nominated Member of Parliament, Viswa Sadasivan, told the audience at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He was invited as a speaker by the school as part of the Bukit Timah Dialogues programme where students get a chance to interact with Singapore leaders in a series of lunchtime seminars.

Like a tradition, this comic stab at the infamous secret police never fails to make its appearance at various political seminars, as if to ease the tension that persists 2 decades after the ISA (Internal Security Act)[1] was last used against a Singaporean during Operation Spectrum.

Since being lambasted by the MM (Minister Mentor) for having ‘highfalutin’ ideals, Viswa Sadasivan, Nominated Member of Parliament and former senior manager of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has been transformed into the darling of the online world. After all, it is not everyday that the ageing MM becomes agitated enough to personally intervene in parliament. [2] Even so, Viswa, an admittedly non-partisan politician, does not appear to relish the limelight, nor does he take a stand against the MM.

Recognizing the tendency for some sections of the internet readership to mercilessly engage in government-bashing, he views his exchange with the MM not with fear, but with a healthy respect that one might give to one’s grandfather.

“I think MM has a different reality. To him, his reality is real. A lot of that belief is predicated on life experiences that were not pleasant. It wasn’t easy for him. A lot of those memories must have come charging at him when he heard or read my speech. I can understand where he was coming from. He is of the firm belief that the ideas I raised are ideological but not necessarily false, but indulgent… If you look at him from that point of view, he makes sense. I disagree with the comments that rubbished his speech. He has as much right as I do, in articulating his thoughts… One should respect him for that.”

As a keen observer of media development over the years, he observes that Singaporeans are increasingly turning to the online space in a bid to find the truth, due to the over-sanitisation of news in the local paper. Ironically, this is where there is less probability of finding the truth. He cautions that because this is an uncurated space, there is not only information, but also misinformation and dis-information – unintentional and intentional dissemination of false information respectively.

The Shincorp-Temasek fiasco as well as the controversial departure of Chip Goodyear from Temasek Holdings were 2 key instances when readership migrated online to quench their thirst for information. Lack of news coverage on critical issues inevitably leads to a surge in speculation. Together with the anonymity that the online space provides, news in the virtual world could be less of a space for truthful information, but rather an outlet avenue to release pent up frustrations or to speculate with conspiracy theories.

Despite this, some sectors online provide an important source of alternative information and are also watchdogs on the government. He observes that pressure put on the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) through the coverage of the Lehmann-Minibonds debacle, by The Online Citizen, led to more accountability to victims of the financial tragedy. Citizen journalists are also not necessarily any less qualified than mainstream journalists, he quips. In fact, as seen from the level of expertise reflected in some online financial and investigative articles, some even put the Straits Times journalists to shame.

However the plight of today’s mainstream media has not always existed.

“When I was there [in Singapore Broadcasting Corporation] in the 1980s, I think we were a bit more gutsy in pushing the boundaries,” he reminisces. “I remember the GE (General Elections) in 1988. We pushed very hard for increased coverage of opposition and on a few occasions we went ahead even though we were told not to. Some of us faced the wrath of a senior political leader at that time. As a journalist if you don’t have bruised knuckles, you are not doing something right. Over the years, because of what I see as depoliticisation of society, you don’t have a crop of people who are interested to become journalists, who are talented to become good journalists. They choose other options, like investment banking.”

Viswa notes that political reporting has declined over the years as journalists themselves have become risk averse and society has been depoliticized. The continued existence of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act [3] has inculcated a culture of political correctness by instilling a certain amount of caution, if not fear among media practitioners in the front line. Yet the lightning speed of information flow today creates an imperative for the local paper to be more concerned with updated information than to be politically correct, as it has been in the past. After all, when information breaks to the international media before the local media, it makes a mockery of the local paper. Viswa cited an instance when he received an SMS about the Nicholl highway collapse, while in Sydney, 20 minutes after the incident. Many Singaporeans then were still unaware of the incident.

Governments today have lost their luxury to hold back information until they are able to hold a press conference, 48 hours after the incident. In today’s world, speed is of crucial importance; the state now has a lot less time to react. If the mainstream media continues losing its credibility, the government could lose the initiative to make sense of what is going on. This loss of authority could lead to increased vulnerability of the nation and even non-traditional security threats.

Trust is eroding between people and the establishment he concludes. There is a mounting cynicism with the mainstream media and thus government is losing its main avenue of communication. Together with the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation online, Viswa worries that the government is increasingly unable to put its point across to the people. The mainstream media needs to rebuild this broken trust, and to be more autonomous, or the problem will exacerbate to a point when there is no U-turn.

Judging by the spirited applause, this man clearly knows his audience. When asked by a student from the public policy school, during the Q&A, if he was trying to be a ‘classic politician’ by invoking the pledge and highlighting income inequality during his speech, he had this to say:

“I did not inject those for effect. I chose information for the speech based on what I have strong convictions on.”

Another student asked about conflicting signals from the government about the new media. He replies with belief that the government is not homogeneous. He believes that some ministers are in touch with the ground while others could be relying on feedback that may not be truthful.

“Those who may be sanitizing the feedback [to the ministers] are doing a gross injustice. Many [ministers] are good people with good intentions who want to do good for this country… we shouldn’t begrudge that.” He adds that there is increasing debate within the leadership and more efforts to influence through the new media.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Viswa replies...

87) Viswa on August 30th, 2009 7.07 pm

The many comments – mostly critical of my decision to request that the article on TOC be taken out – are expected and reasonable. I anticipated a reaction when i made the decision (which was not easy) after careful consideration. Similarly, i anticipated a reaction (and not just a response) from government when i delivered my maiden speech in Parliament two weeks ago – although, i must admit, i did not expect it to be as robust or assume the complexion it did.

I would like to make a few brief comments, not so much in response to the many comments by the netizens in TOC, but to clarify my position in the spirit of discussions in the online media. I am doing this because i feel i need to recognise and respect the many contributors to TOC with a considered response.

a) My appreciation to the Editor of TOC for graciously acceding to my request, even though he must have anticipated criticism. This showed maturity and equanimity – values that, over time, will command respect and credibility.

b) I stand by what i said in Parliament in my maiden speech and in my summation of the debate that ensued. I didnt have to make a maiden speech and i certainly was not obliged to raise the issues i did. I chose to speak on them and in the manner i did because they are important points/arguments that had to be raised in Parliament for debate. I chose to move a “substantive motion” in Parliament (something that is not often done by backbenchers, and certainly not by NMPs) because i feel strongly that we, as a society, need to reflect further on the basic tenets of the Pledge and find ways to better align our policies and practices with them. I wanted a debate in Parliament and also amongst Singaporeans/PRs from all walks of life – and moving a substantive motion in Parliament was the best way (if not the only way) to achieve this. [Point of clarification: i did not release the text of my speech to the media - mainstream or online - or to anybody else (other than to Parliament) before i delivered it in Parliament. This, in spite of several requests.]

c) Similarly, i stand by whatever i said in my off-the-cuff speech delivered last Wed in the LKY School of Public Policy – something i committed to two months ago. [The fact is i would not have agreed to make this speech now if the request came after my maiden speech in Parliament - simply because i feel i want to step back and observe and reflect on the response from all fronts to my speech in Parliament. It is very important to maintain clarity - of content and intent - when something as significant happens, especially when you happen to be at the centre of it. It has nothing to do with fear per se. It is about being cognizant of the impact of what you are saying and making sure you continue to say what you mean and are willing to be accountable for as you push the boundaries - for socio-political and legal considerations. Anyone who has been in a similar situation would appreciate what i am talking about here - it is the responsible, sensible thing to do.]

d) When i spoke at the LKY School, the assumption was that it would be governed by “Chatham House” conventions i.e. that it is closed-door, non-attributable and not open to media (mainstream and online) coverage. This is not unusual. There are many issues a speaker is comfortable and willing to be engaged on in a “Chatham House” setting, that he/she would not otherwise. In the case of my speech at the LKY School, it was not just an understanding, but an agreement. It has nothing to do with my belief in freedom of expression or democracy (yes, things i referred to in my speeches), but about an agreement. It is a speaker’s prerogative to make clear the conditions under which you will speak and be engaged – and i exercised that prerogative. I make no apologies for this decision. My decision was predicated primarily on my desire to step-back and reflect on responses to my maiden speech in Parliament, which was still on-going i.e. instead of opening a fresh thread of discussions on a different front.

e) I accepted my appointment as NMP, in spite of the awareness of the many demands it would have on my time at home and work and my peace of mind, because i felt the time was right for me to make a contribution at this level. I also felt i was in a position to make a meaningful contribution to Singapore and society. How do i see my role? Very simple – a responsible, non-partisan role serving the interests of my country and fellow Singaporeans. I am not there to oppose the government or the PAP as a political party. This means that my views may be critical of the government/the establishment and its policies and practices where i see the need for this, and at other times i would be happy to lend support to the government/the establishment and its policies and practices when they serve the interests of our country and our people. In either case, I must endeavour to speak honestly, with integrity and without fear. I am also committed to acting responsibly in my capacity as NMP. This would translate to three things essentially: ensuring my submissions are factually correct and well researched; that they don’t detract from conventions of good taste and standards as understood in our society; and finally, not playing to the gallery, so to speak i.e. not losing my integrity and motivation to speak in the best interest of the country and our people, and succumbing to the lure of popularity. It is a pity that over the past few weeks i have seen comments suggesting that i am an actor (possibly even a lead actor) in a government “wayang” i.e. that i was “planted” to give a semblance of debate in Parliament etc etc. For me, this is yet another example of the level of cynicism amongst so many Singaporeans, especially in the intelligentsia.

f) my final point is that i have the right to protect my interests. Self Preservation, to a reasonable extent is my prerogative. i will not apologise for this. When i assume public office and especially when i know i am pushing the boundaries and therefore coming under sharper scrutiny, it is reasonable and sensible for me to be mindful of the political and especially legal implications of what i say, or appear to be saying. Again, i hope we dont see the need for us to take a “you are with me or against me” stance here. In this regard, just because i ask for the article on my LKY School speech to be taken off TOC because for me this is not what i agreed to when making the speech and when what was written (in my view) was not sufficiently faithful to what i conveyed in my speech and Q&A session – it does not mean i am going against TOC or being anti-democratic or that i am going back on what i argued for in Parliament and at the LKY School. i say, honestly and without hesitation, that a good part of my decision was predicated on self-preservation i.e. to ensure that what i said in the LKY School is not misread, misunderstood by the ground, the intelligentsia, the mainstream media and yes, the government. It is also my prerogative to ensure i am not unduly or unnecessarily exposed to libel suits. I know this is the path that some of our worthy politicians have had to take in pursuing their belief. Let me make no pretence here – i dont intend to take that path. This certainly does not mean i am not prepared to speak up on issues that matter to me and that push the boundaries and that challenge status quo. I have and will continue to do so, when i see the need for it in the interests of Singapore and our people. Heroes are important, especially when we are at a point of inflexion, but dead heroes are of no use to anyone, at least in the Singapore context.

Let me end by extending my thanks to the many over the past few weeks who have supported what i said in Parliament, and especially those who have taken time to express how what i said made a difference to them as Singaporeans. For those of you who have been critical of my comments, suspicious of my motivations or who vehemently oppose my decision to ask for the TOC article to be taken off and the manner in which i did so – i take your comments on-board for reflection, even if i may not agree with some of them at face value. As i said in Parliament on 19th Aug 2009 (in my summation of the debate on my motion) – it would be great if we can agree, but if we cant, that’s alright too, as long as we continue to listen to each other and agree to disagree. This is the democratic process.

Thanks for taking time to read my comment.

Regards
Viswa Sadasivan

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

I wasn't the one who mention "integrity" in the first place. You are just saying TOC wanted to preserve their integrity but my counter argument is that, does it mean SPH reporters have no integrity since they will just publish whatever they want and refuse the vetting of the interviewees?

Being hardworking is one thing, but doing it right is another. Just like what you have said with regards to opposition parties; they could be hardworking on this and that but ultimately if they screw up on the public relationship front, all those hard work just doesn't count. Just not enough for them to make it to parliament. Period.

Similarly for SPH and TOC. There are many hard working journalists and reporters but when at the end of the day, they screw up on public perception, whatever hard work will mean nothing as well. That is why some good reporters and journalists left SPH ultimately.

I really don't know how you conclude it was an "exclusive interview" when what the article talks about are just the speech Viswa made in a forum! Besides, even if it is "exclusive interview", no reporters or journalists with any dignity and integrity would accede to the interviewee's request of vetting the write up!

Locke, as I have said, you have missed the point totally. If this is closed door forum and no reports allow, then stick to that, instead of having it half baked then regret. It is pretty alright for me if Viswa's first response to TOC is to request it from reporting this closed door event. I could respect that. Fine. But to go a step further by requesting a vetting of the write up before it publishes, is totally another cup of tea altogether. You just cannot have your cake and eat it.

Asking for vetting of article written by journalist IS NOT A GROUND RULE! It is in fact an insult to the journalist and journalism!

As I have said it, once an article is out on the net, it is already in public domain. Period. Whether you like it or not, it will be copied and reproduced elsewhere. It is almost near stupidity to try and stop it, worse making yourself look even worse by requesting it to be withdrawn because you have wanted to vet it!

This is a total PR disaster for both sides in today's context.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

You really should stop accusing people of lacking "integrity" and even "journalistic integrity" when at the end of the day they are just a hard working crew trying their best.

It was an exclusive interview as admitted by Visawan, He refused to have his comments in any form reported by the main stream media but allowed it to be carried by the alternative media.

Secondly a closed door session, invite only private event, implies a certain degree of privacy for both public speakers and participants, to allow them to be a little freer. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that this EVENT was public and for public consumption, and I certainly hold the view that if a speaker wants everything off the record then all at the event should be honorable and not publicize his views publicly in any form.

Visawan could have stated clearly within the seminar what was off the record and what was on the record. He could have but did not but chose instead to decide on what he wanted on or off the record after the event was over. That was definitely within ground rules.

Finally Lets not confuse "censorship" of Mee Siam Mai Hum and " Fixing the opposition' with a decision by a public figure to keep certain issues or statement out of the public record especially in a private invite only event. The email only serves to clarify the issue for those who understand the context of Chatnam House rules, for those who can't well it does not matter anyway because they see no need to respect the private space.



Locke

 

[scroobal]

All this could be avoided if he made the arrangements instead of his PA. A tip for the Self Preservation Module.

 

[scroobal]

For those looking for a summary, here it is

"Its is true that I spoke against fishing as recreation sport as it is cruel and inhumane. However how I spend my holidays fishing off the Great Barrier Reef is my perogative and I make no apologies for it. I fish to keep my sanity in a harsh and demanding environment. I do not consider my form of fishing as recreation but therapeutic and essential. I also follow the Chesire House rules that provide for catch and release where the fish is put in water in a quick humane manner. I am also told that fish do not sense pain as much as humans do.

Thank for spending time reading my comments"

Viswa replies...

87) Viswa on August 30th, 2009 7.07 pm

The many comments – mostly critical of my decision to request that the article on TOC be taken out – are expected and reasonable. I anticipated a reaction when i made the decision (which was not easy) after careful consideration. Similarly, i anticipated a reaction (and not just a response) from government when i delivered my maiden speech in Parliament two weeks ago – although, i must admit, i did not expect it to be as robust or assume the complexion it did.

]

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Context , context, Chatnam House rules to preserve annoyminity and allow free debate and discussion. You absolutely refuse to see the issue in context.

Yes Visawan tried to have his cake and eat it, misguided in my view but never the less acceptable within Chatnam House rules. However in my experience Chatnam House rules usually apply on a blanket basis across the media. And in this regards he did bend it in giving exclusivity favoring the on line media

Within that parameter, he bending chatnam house rules, not declaring within the forum what was on and off limts, agreeing to publication and then only deciding after the event what was off the record and on the record was against protocol but entirely fair given the context.



Locke

 

[Blue6]

If everybody adopts a defensive posture to guard against the Sword Of Damocles hanging over one's head in the form of a Lee Kuan Yew lawsuit, then please save the layamn at large the disappointments.

 

[scroobal]

Kudos for a succint and accurate statement.

If everybody adopts a defensive posture to guard against the Sword Of Damocles hanging over one's head in the form of a Lee Kuan Yew lawsuit, then please save the layman at large the disappointments.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

Context , context, Chatnam House rules to preserve annoyminity and allow free debate and discussion. You absolutely refuse to see the issue in context.

Yes Visawan tried to have his cake and eat it, misguided in my view but never the less acceptable within Chatnam House rules. However in my experience Chatnam House rules usually apply on a blanket basis across the media. And in this regards he did bend it in giving exclusivity favoring the on line media

Within that parameter, he bending chatnam house rules, not declaring within the forum what was on and off limts, agreeing to publication and then only deciding after the event what was off the record and on the record was against protocol but entirely fair given the context.



Locke

Dear Locke,

First of all, it was Viswa and TOC that broke the context of Chatnam rule, remember?

As I have said, if they respect that rule and apply it, it wouldn't have been so messy. Sorry to say this, they have hit their own toes with a big stone.

And the context of Professional Journalism is that you can agree to anything but NOT for interviewees to VET your article before you publish them! This is the context I am talking about. One good reason doesn't mean you could step on other good practice.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

We are still evolving political, journalistic and debate conventions in Singapore. I view this episode as a learning experience for all :_))

Professionally speaking if a speaker declared that a closed door event was off the record but chose instead to allow me to report on it with his permission as long as he could clarify after the event what was on the record and off the record is I feel quite ethical.

Better form would have been to declare within the forum what was off the record and on the record but I feel that this inhibits the free flow of discussion He just chose an easier more fuss free path. Nothing about vetting, rather journalistic courtesy in letting a man decide what he wants on and off the record




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Scroobal may be right, it would have not mess up everything if Viswa has communicated directly with TOC.

Yes, we are all on the harsh learning curve. Healthy debate and criticism are definitely a plus for an evolving democracy. I have made my fair share of mistakes as well in the whole process.

I think for this episode, TOC could just withdraw the article stating that it had made a mistake because the Chatnam rule is supposed to apply for the forum. End of story. This is from a Public Relationship perspective. However, I think TOC did not realize that what they have done could be detrimental to their credibility; i.e. agreeing for vetting is definitely a NO NO for Professional Independent Journalism. Just too bad, they have hit themselves hard on this one.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

We are still evolving political, journalistic and debate conventions in Singapore. I view this episode as a learning experience for all :_))

Professionally speaking if a speaker declared that a closed door event was off the record but chose instead to allow me to report on it with his permission as long as he could clarify after the event what was on the record and off the record is I feel quite ethical.

Better form would have been to declare within the forum what was off the record and on the record but I feel that this inhibits the free flow of discussion He just chose an easier more fuss free path. Nothing about vetting, rather journalistic courtesy in letting a man decide what he wants on and off the record




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

to me once the article went online the dye was cast...the article was and still is in the domain of cyberspace as can be seen from this very thread itself, so what is the practical significance of TOC's subsequent removal?? ...

instead of requesting for the article to be removed from TOC viswa should have just placed on record the agreement between him and TOC(which he has done) and then gone on to explain in detail where he took issue with TOC's article(he seems to have done this to some extent in his request and latest comment to TOC)...

i must say that for an experienced media practitioner i am surprised at viswa's somewhat inept handling of this matter...moreover TOC's article in question looked pretty mild to me apart from viswa's apparent attack on 154(which should not be a problem) so i don't know why he had to react in such an antsy manner notwithstanding chatham house rules and his agreement with TOC...surely he would have recorded the entire session at LKY school for his own protection and reference...

egg on both viswa and TOC's faces this time round...hope they both learn from this episode...however i think the public should perhaps cut viswa some slack as well...i take him at face value until i see otherwise...and i see a chap who appears to have his heart in the right place and is prepared to put his toe in the 'tricky and dangerous waters' of the local political arena but only to the extent that he is comfortable with...which is his prerogative...so perhaps the public should temper its high expectations and see him for he is...an NMP, no more and no less...

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I do agree that it is a PR disaster. However, the main point of this incident stands - that if it is something exclusive and not public (it having published in public domain don't make a public in the first place), some rules need to apply. Ask MJ about Martin Bashir and he'll tell you the same thing.

Although personally I would rather Viswa replied to what he disagrees to rather than ask the whole article to be taken down, I still defend his right if he made an agreement with TOC. If TOC did get the green light from him and he wants to retract it back, then he deserves the flaks.

It is a flaw agreement in the context of Professional Independent Journalism. That's the crux of the matter.

Imagine if such things are allowed, then does it mean that PAP has the right to restrain or censor TOC in reporting any of its events or views? Opposition parties too? Then it would naturally be that any reports by TOC will only talk good and not bad on the events or views that they have covered! Such journalistic practices only exist in communist regimes (eg. China, North Korea) or countries under dictatorship.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Its not censorship, within the context of an off the record briefing, he is certainly entitled and the journalist should give him the right to decide what is on and off record



Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

There are no in between, Locke.

It was a speech, you don't go on and off the record for the speech. For interview, yes.

He could have verbally stated what is off the record, that's fine. But to go to the extend of vetting the whole article to decide, that's where the mockery lies.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Its not censorship, within the context of an off the record briefing, he is certainly entitled and the journalist should give him the right to decide what is on and off record



Locke