Biased Observer

Word is that there are snide murmurings amongst the ranks that a certain senior minister has not quietly taken a back seat but is instead traipsing about grabbing valuable headline space away from a not-too-happy prime minister.

Not happy not happy lor. Who's yo' daddy?

True or not, I can't help but be vaguely amused by the whole situation. You mean 15 years ago, when the farcical designation of senior minister was created, no one had the foresight to realise how the sins of the father would be visited upon the son? So one person's self-indulgent refusal to take a graceful step 'down' resulted not only putting his son as number three (after the mentor and the senior), but severely undermined the son's authority and credibility by unwittingly designating two others as having greater 'clout' in the political hierarchy.

Unlike the title of President, there is nothing remotely ceremonial about the senior minister and minister mentor. Though some might argue that all three are publicly elected officers with important political obligations and being President is not the figurehead of the days of yore, I would have to tactfully disagree. A friend of mine, well placed in the political hierarchy and closely involved in the electoral process, showed her cards when she asked absently over coffee, "So who do you think will be appointed the next President?"

If there was ever a more notable freudian slip....

By singling out members of the parliament for the special titles of senior and mentor, we are tacitly creating a class of politicians that are too important to be returned to the common pool of a mere minister or even, heaven forbid, member, and need to be treated differently. Or is that deferentially? Perhaps it is a holdover of the still strong Asian tradition of respecting one's elders, even if one's elders are senile and batty and possibly incontinent. Age trumps all. The problem is not with the title, but with the fact that these titles are bestowed on active elected officials. Had they been retired advisors it wouldn't have been as problematic. After all, they are no longer part of the official government hierarchy, and a political party is free to designate their members however they wish.

Titles of elected officials should be immutable, in that they should not be created or customised based on individuals. Nobody should be accomodated, given 'face,' because of who they are. Once that exception was made, the precedence created has become a veritable can of worms for a group that valiantly tries to wave the banner of meritocracy in the face of endless accusations of nepotism.

Let's see them try to put that rabbit back in the hat.

I am not sure when this happened, since I am a print subscriber to the Straits Times and barely read it as it is, much less take the effort to surf to the ST website back when it was free. But there's now a page for a small, puny, pithy selection of articles for free.

Time to break out the bubbly!

I can remember the furor generated back when they decided to change to a subscription service, incurring the wrath of untold numbers of free-loaders. Not that I'm sympathetic to SPH for its rather bone-headed move, but I'm also not sure how I can absolutely defend anyone's right to read Straits Times articles for free. That said, the internet being what it is, you better have something real special to offer before going to a pay model.

Anyway, I wonder what triggered this, and actually what's the point of it even. The offerings are paltry, worse than what asiaone offers by way of ST articles. But it's probably pointless to wonder because this presumes they have a clear strategy in the first place.

There reaches a point where something good becomes something not so good. Like Wang Zhen, I did a review of my bloglines subscriptions and cleaned house, removing some of the more popular blogs around town. Given that personal blogs take whichever path its owner so desires, there is little point in registering displeasure or whining about it. Don't like it? Then don't read it.

I actually had a rather long entry I was working on, talking about some of the recent developments in the local blogging community, in particular the rise in popularity of a Singapore-focused metablog as well as the upcoming bloggers' convention. However, the more I looked over it, the less I felt inclined to publish it. For one, I did not feel at liberty to critique a certain segment of bloggers simply because we hold different opinions of how blogging should present itself to the public. As some so tirelessly admonish to the detractors, if we so disagree with the premise, then we could jolly-well start our own metablog and publicity campaign. Neither of which is of any interest to me. So yes, it is put-up and shut-up. Never the best of ways to challenge an incumbent, but given that I have no intention of unseating them, there seems little point in picking a fight to inherit a mantle I have no interest in championing.

That aside, it's been a fascinating few months for the Singapore blogging community. It seems like an almost too perfect case study of Malcolm Gladwell's concept of the tipping point, triggered in large part by a certain defamation threat. Combine that with a few mildly inflated egos fanned by a press hungry to get in on the scene, and voila - suddenly there is a cadre of self-appointed blogging elders holding court. Grab the opportunity and run with it - nothing wrong with that really. Had a similar opportunity landed in my inbox I'd have declined, so I can hardly hold that against anyone.

What does concern me as a blogger, is that the dominant blogging culture right now centers around personalities, and not so much blogging. Of being seen, being in the papers, being linked by the elders, being part of a circle of coolness. Somewhere along the way, blogging fell by the wayside, a mere peripheral entity, and the focus became more about being associated with popular bloggers. It's like one gigantic meme.

My feelings towards this recent phenomenon are mine alone, and I don't expect readers to agree with this nor do I want anyone to take this as a push for certain entities to do things a different way. I've made that pretty clear.

Time is the best judge of things. Whether something is a mere fad or has legs for the long run. And even then, being a mere fad is not inherently a poorer destiny than a long running blog. Either serves a purpose, and as long as that purpose is aligned with the intent of the blogger, that's all that really matters.