Observations on December 26th, Campaign Day Three.

Yawn, day #3 of unashamed biased reporting by the local media.

1. Hey, did you know that Chok Tong's name in Chinese was printed wrongly (a typo, ala Soon Juan) *and* inspite of it being highlighted at a WP rally, not a word was reported in the regular media? I don't read nor understand Chinese, but those who do have told me that the error is embarassing.

2. I had sent an e-mail to the Straits Times complaining about the Nomination Day Special biasness. I don't have any illusion that it will be printed, but just enough to know where the ST stands on their biasness.

3. Ooooh, the BIG US "interference in Singapore's politics" cattle droppings. The PAP is trying to desperately latch on to that comment and say "Singaporeans should unite to stop us being pushed around". Hey, you overpaid ministers - why are you now trying to change the issue and hoping to get Singaporeans to rally behind you? Singaporeans are smarter than you think. Remember back (late 80s I think) when Teng Cheong (who was then babysitting the NTUC) staged a mockery of a protest march outside the US Embassy over the issue of copyrights? Are you gonna "stage" one like that now?
   Well, here's a surprise - what the US said is perfectly valid. Stop being a cry babies! The PAP is abusing its powers by using upgrading as a carrot and trying to "coerce" the public into voting for them. Sure US politicians have refined such pork barrel tactics to an art form, but for them to point it out is NOT "interference in domestic politics". Come on, PAP - you can do better than this. Are the PAP strategists so out of ideas that you have to latch on to innocent comments made by others? Now, I hear Chee Hian asking what the other parties have to say about this. I am sure the other parties (and some sensible PAP MPs and PAP MP-Wannbes) will echo my sentiment that it is no big deal. To which, these overpaid PAP ministers could say that they (the non-PAP parties) (and I, by implication), are not loyal to Singapore. Hey, PAP, being loyal to Singapore does not mean that if an outsider makes a valid comment about Singapore politics, we must refute him all the time. In this case, the US is perfectly right in making the statement. You are blowing the whole issue out of proportion and is shameful. Get back to the issues.

4. Loong's dad now says that one of the members of Jeyaretnam's is a dangerous person. How about PAP bloke Boon Yang's team member, Choo Wee Kiang - his racist statement was just as bad, if not worse. Wee Kiang, you probably did not know that your gerrymandered constituency still INCLUDES "blackedout" Serangoon Road!

5. Why does the radio and TV and newspapers report PAP stuff more fully and along the way stuff from the other political parties, minus any comment from the voters/electors like you and me? Why are we NOT figured in the press? I know that the PAP govt does not like to do opinion surveys, but that does not mean that the traditional media cannot interview you and me to know what we think about these blokes? Did the media forget that it is us the electorate that votes for and pays the salaries of these MPs?

6. Why is it that when the biased TV station shows the rallies, the ones by PAP have more airtime and there are more shots of the crowds, while the clips showing WP/SDP/SPP/NSP rallies do not show the crowds? This is classic Nazi-style manipulation to give the false impression that there are few people at non-PAP rallies. Hey, we are far smarter than that!

7. Will the net be a factor in this election? Well, I think not. But, it will be the factor in the next. Why? Let's look at the numbers. There are about 120K subscribers with the three local ISPs. Let's say 50% of them read newsgroups. Of them, say 50% can vote (and are not in the stupid situation of a walkover). That gives about 30K. With a multiplier effect of say 4 (colleagues, friends, family, neighbours etc), then the information on the net will be made known to about 120K people. 120K is about the size of only 1 GRC (GerrymandeRed Constituencies). But, in 5 years, I can state that each and every fellow countryman will be wired in one form or the other and therefore make the traditional govt-sanctioned media useless.

8. The so-called Party Political Broadcasts are clearly attempts are denying the non-PAP parties enough exposure. By using some completely brain-dead (like the Internet Regulations fiasco) formulas, the PAP continues to get the most amount of time. I suggest that if the PAP is so smug and confident that they can win, then they should change this archaic nonsense and give all parties equal air time. PAP's immaturity in this is unbelieveable! Hey, the PAP does get free air time anyway in the news both on TV and radio so why perpetuate this?