Sign the petition! http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?NoWSinSG
I was at 214. 
Petition against Whale Sharks in Aquarium
Crowd Powered Media
Talk about wisdom of crowds and citizen journalism. Forget Stomp!, forget omy.sg, NowPublic is the latest kid on the block that allows people to collectively create news reports. The best part of it is that it is not backed by a Singapore GLC. Check it out, and you can be a reporter in no time.
Nothing but the truth?
It has been drummed into the people that online media is always not worth listening to, because of all the bad things being said there. Today’s Straits Times editorial piece “Online citizen engagement must happen – soon” had the following paragraph:
“A serious handicap is that cybersphere as exists in Singapore today for the purpose of sounding off is a jungle. It is chock-a-block with half-truths, rumour, innuedo, distortions of facts and mispresentations, spiced with loads of off-beam opinion-making and defamation.”
The underlying message, of course, is to say that main stream media is all high and mighty and will spare no effort to ensure that the “truths” and facts they present to the readers will never be wrong.
However, it is interesting to note that, in a recent parliament sitting, when MP Baey Yam Keng cited a Straits Times report and asked a question on the management of the fund set up for formerly conjoined Nepalese girls, the Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan replied: “So here is an example of not all reports are factual. So you have to double-check your facts.” (Straits Times, 27 Aug 2008, “Govt has no role in fund for Nepal twins”)
Another instance of main stream media making a mistake is spotted today on ChannelNewsAsia’s website. 
Click on the above image to see the highlighted portion. MP Lim Hwee Hua is a part of the Aljunied GRC, and not a part of the Ang Mo Kio GRC.
Maybe these are just isolated cases where mistakes are made, but it does show that the main stream media is definitely not to be relied upon totally for truths.
Taking the flip-side of the coin, there are many websites and blogs in the online world, using phrases like those written in the ST editorial today does not do justice to the efforts taken by some who seriously and painstakingly ensure that the information on their site are accurate.
Google Chrome – cool new app
It is more than just a browser, I think it is a Google OS disguised as a browser: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html
Took me all of 5 secs to download and install, and this post is written while accessing my wordpress admin through Chrome.
If there is one cool app you install in your computer this year, this will be IT!
只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯？
谁说新加坡政治发展缓慢？相隔一年，执政党处理政治性活动的方式有了一百八十度的转变，这种变化不叫快，叫什么？
一年前，新加坡的一个政党申请在九月九日于东海岸公园举行脚踏车活动，被警方拒绝。（存档链接：http://www.clipclip.com/choongyong.koh/clips/detail/29750）总理几个星期前宣布放宽某些政治活动的限制，与今天起允许国民在芳林公园示威。无独有偶，在所谓放宽管制的今天，于中英两份主媒体报章中，就看到了总理在脚踏车上的“英姿”。
工人党主席林瑞莲一年前在国会上询问警方拒绝有关申请的原因，内政部兼律政部高级政务部长何炳基副教授（好长的名堂）答复时，列明以下几点原因：
- 东海岸公园是让新加坡人和他们家人休闲的地方，政党不应该用来宣传其政治理念。
- 那是个户外场所，更可能出现破坏宁静环境，导致骚乱、难控制的局面。
- 即使主办者奉公守法（如果只有20人参加，对公众不会造成任何干扰），但其他人可能因为不赞同主办者的政治观点而导致双方争吵起来，引来群众。何炳基对刘程强先生说：“你也许会守秩序，但你在骑脚踏车过程中遇到的一些人也许会逼你停下来，和你争论不休。这可能引来群众加入，引发警方不愿意看到的秩序问题。”
总结以上几点，不难得出警方一年前拒绝批准申请的主要考量：
- 政党不能在休闲地段主办活动
- 政党不能在户外场所主办活动
- 政治人物在外活动，也许会遇到人们和他们争论不休
- 政党在户外主办活动，就算只有20人参加，也会可能引发警方不愿意看到的秩序问题
令人费解的是报章报道昨天的活动时，也有以下几个共同点：
- 主办者是人民行动党社区基金-隶属于人民行动党，新加坡现今的执政党
- 活动地点在西海岸公园，与东海岸公园一样是休闲场所
- 活动地点也在户外
- 据早报报导，参加这项活动的部长和议员包括：李显龙，林瑞生，许文远，尚穆根，颜金勇，张俰宾，林文兴，张志贤
- 据早报报导，昨天约有1万3000人参与这个活动
相比下来，两项活动的共同点实在太多，昨天的活动最大的不同，只有（1）人民行动党是执政党，（2）活动的规模大了许多倍，政治人物也多了许多，（3）活动被批准主办。
所以说，若不是政府处理政治性活动的方式改变的话，就只有一个可能：只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯。
注：点击谚语的链接，读一读典故，细细回味吧。*一笑*
哭有时，笑有时；悲伤有时，欢乐有时
早上如常带儿子上学，在楼下碰见邻居。邻居告诉我，她儿子的好友刚刚失去了父亲。四十岁，身体最近才经过检查，并无大恙。不料一天在工作上忽然晕倒，一倒不起，原来是心脏病发作。
虽然我本身并不认识死者，但也勾起了自己的一些回忆：两年前楼下的家庭医生和我们一家人都非常熟悉，因为大儿子当时常常生病。有一天听到医生骤死的新闻，我们也有点不知所措。
可想而知，这些死者的家人，听到亲人的死讯时，应该会更加振撼。
最近追看香港电视连续剧《溏心风暴》，剧中也有亲人去世的情节。去世了的大妈，安排了一封在死后三个月才交给家人的信，里面写了非常有意义的一句：
哭有时，笑有时；悲伤有时，欢乐有时
吩咐家人：可以为我的死去而悲伤，但三个月后，悲伤的时候也该过去，应该继续有意义，有目标的活下去了。
很简单的一句话，但我在看到这一段时，眼眶也盈满泪水。
自己常常也会想，人生无常，什么事情都可能发生，说不定现在好好坐在这里写博客，一会儿上街因为某种原因去了。也因为这样，自己选择的道路和许多人不同，着重于珍惜现在，而不是希望年轻时猛拼，老来才享受天伦。
只不过万一真的不幸死去，希望我的亲人们也会记得这一句：哭有时，笑有时；悲伤有时，欢乐有时，在悲伤一段短时间后继续坚强的走下去。
Posted in choongyong, life
View Comments
WP Celebrates National Day
Had you always wondered what meaningful thing you can do on National Day? Why not volunteer your time for a few hours to join in with Workers’ Party’s activity to celebrate our National Day?
Send an email to organising@wp.sg for more details.
Hope to see you.
Your profile has broken rules of use
Was surfing the web this morning and came across this New Paper article Your profile has broken rules of use. So it is confirmed that the change in Reach Singapore’s Facebook presence was prompted by my earlier post.
Just would like to say this is good because it closes a loop:
- Government does something wrong (although not a big crime in this case, but still something that is not right)
- Someone points out (acts as a check)
- Government takes action based on evaluation of feedback
- The right thing is done
This might be a small thing, but it truly reflects that kind of Singapore I would like to live in. Some comments in my earlier blog postings accuse me of nit-picking on small things. However, if we don’t even feedback and check on the small things, what happens when something really big goes wrong? There is definitely a need for checks and balances in our system, from the smallest thing like a Facebook profile, to the “big things” like government policies.
There was others who says I am criticizing from a moral high ground instead of feeding back to Reach on this. I say this is what the Internet is about: someone says something, if it is complete nonsense, it will be forgotten and left to rot on its on; if it makes sense, someone else will pick it up and more people will read about it. In this case, I am grateful that someone thought my original posting was worthy enough and recommended it to Tomorrow.sg (although a few days after I first posted it), and the editors of Tomorrow.sg decided to publish it, and from there the attention grew. Eventually enough people got to know about this, and eventually the right people made the corrections.
Isn’t this a wonderful closure of loop that many would like to see in so many of our other suggestions in day-to-day life?
Definitely, the Internet is not an arena where ‘more heat than light is generated’.
Reach Singapore, Facebook and privacy
I blogged about Reach Singapore’s Facebook profile a few days ago. Today, it was picked up by tomorrow.sg and I saw quite a number of visitors to my blog. There is also a small debate at tomorrow.sg about this.
There was a blog that accused me of being rigid and quoted a number of other organisations with Facebook presence, like UNICEF Youth Voice. Someone responded that the blogger too did not understand, that there is a difference between a User Account (which Reach Singapore’s was), Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages. Rightfully said, because the violation I mentioned was with the use of a User Account to represent an organisation. None of the other quoted groups/organisations used a User Account.
Going back to Facebook again to check out Reach Singapore’s profile, I realised that the User Reach Singapore also created a Reach Singapore Facebook Group today. I was thinking to myself, at least they are pretty fast in responding to feedback, even when the feedback originated from elsewhere on the net.
However, when I refreshed the Reach Singapore User Account profile, I was confused. The name of the profile was no longer “Reach Singapore”. It has now become “Ho Chee Har”.
Now there is a small problem here. What this means is, if you are one of the 300+ people who added “Reach Singapore” as a “friend”, you suddenly have someone you don’t know in your friends’ list. If you chose the default settings when adding friends, your personal information in Facebook that you shared with your friends will now be available to Ho Chee Har.
This is a small problem because you can always remove Ho Chee Har from your friend’s list. But it goes back to my original premise: if the platform was understood and the correct tools (Page or Group) were used in the first place, no such problem would have occurred in the first place.