Biased Observer

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
--From Macbeth (V, v, 19)

There is much gnashing of teeth these days over the linking 'policy' of Tomorrow.sg. The indignant bash the editors for being rude in not asking for permission to link to blogs, the inured post an image declaring themselves off-limits to Tomorrow.sg, and the defenders blast all and sundry for being clueless to the ways of the internet.

Who is right? Who's wrong?

Frankly, I think the idea of asking permission before linking to be utter rubbish. It's not about nettiquette or blogiquette or David Arquette. Public posts, public domain, freedom to share. Those claiming copyright or ownership are rather misplaced in their anger, a link and brief quote neither violates copyright nor infringes upon ownership. But I'll leave those arguments for those better qualified to quote from relevant statutes.

That said, why does Tomorrow.sg incur such negative vibes from various corners? Some I can dismiss, others not so much. A real life friend got linked once, and though he was not keen on the attention and would have preferred not to have been linked, he, like me, believed fundamentally that our blogs, once in public domain, are free to be linked. But something sits funny nonetheless.

So why the discomfort? Why should Tomorrow.sg be subject to OB markers? Bloggers put up 'Tomorrow not free lah' images, but not for other blogs or aggregators and such. What is driving this anti-Tomorrow.sg sentiment?

Some have pointed to the attitudes and behaviours of the editors, and while I think some could do with a quick course in PR, I believe there is something larger at work.

One thing that we cannot change is how small Singapore is. Someone invariably knows another, who is the cousin twice removed who frequents the same gym or shares the same piano teacher or shops at the same NTUC outlet. For many, publicity within the Singapore community is a negative, not necessarily because of the content of one's blog, but rather born of a desire not to be the fodder for talk and gossip amongst people that they may know. Coupled with the local press' recent penchance for writing about blogs, there is a risk of being found out in a big way.

Some have used the analogy that blogging is like walking around in the public naked, attention is inevitable and cries for privacy are misguided. I quite disagree. Blogs like Xiaxue's or SPG's are about walking around naked. But most bloggers are just people walking along the street or sitting at an outdoor cafe. Their presence in the public is not necessarily an invitation to be made into a focus of attention.

One of the beauties of blogging is the sheer variety of blogs out there, be they personal, political, linkdumps, tech-oriented, group blogs, fiction, etc. But increasingly the attention and pressure coming from Tomorrow.sg is squeezing out bloggers who are less inclined to sit in the spotlight, usually those who write with a more personal bent. Posts are locked, entire blogs taken down (sometimes moved and a pseudonym adopted), or self-censorship exercised. The result may be a sphere that better understands the 'dangers' of blogging in public (do not bare if you cannot stand the heat), but I don't think it's a richer one.

There'll always be an element of exhibitionism/voyeurism in blogging, but it's not all or nothing. There are degrees to this, some enjoy being in flagrante delicto, others prefer a niche audience. There is no one way to do things, and running an aggregator in a limited social environment like Singapore does impose certain strictures whether one likes it or not.

If I had to choose between the success of Tomorrow.sg and the success of a vibrant, open Singaporean 'blogosphere' - I will have to opt for the latter.

If I had a stronger stomach, I'd actually read the articles in ST properly before commenting. But I don't, just skimming the headlines and forum letters is enough to make me feel absolutely nauseous. So unlike Mr. Wang, who does his homework so that we can benefit from his incisive commentary, you'll have to put up with my half-assed biased opinions. But then, I never promised any more did I?

Maybe we can blame all this on the opposition. Actually, let's do just that. Because if we can't use them as kicking posts, what good are they?

In 1991, the general elections saw PAP lose 4 seats to the opposition, winning only 61% of the popular vote - their worst showing since 1968. It was considered quite a blow to the new prime minister, rumblings abound that he could not sustain the power of the party that his predecessor left for him. The opposition managed to make such inroads by changing their approach - instead of contesting every single seat, they changed gears and contested fewer than half the seats. The strategy was to guarantee PAP's return to power, in hopes that this would encourage and enbolden voters to cast a ballot for the opposition. It worked brilliantly well, so much so that this has been pretty much standard operating procedure ever since.

The consequence is that a good majority of adult Singaporeans have never ever voted. And it would seem that many have forgotten the whole point of voting. Because seriously? I can't find any other explanation for the calls to return the incumbent president to office without contest. What's worse is how many have prejudged the competition as not 'worthy' and are calling for the certificates of eligibility not to be issued.

What happened to the power of the vote? The whole point of elections is for citizens to look at the candidates and judge for themselves who is most qualified for the job by casting a vote. Instead we have citizens calling for elections by proxy. He cannot make it lah, don't even give him COE! It's sad the number of people lamenting a wasted Saturday if elections were to go ahead no thanks to a bunch of inconsiderate (or is it deluded) egoists. Aiyoh so mafan one, must go and vote, if not got public holiday leh!

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Because after all, as with any corporate AGM, there is a proxy form that shareholders can use to authorise a designated representative to cast ballots on their behalf. Except we've gone the extra step of having the all powerful representative decide our ballot. Power, okay! No need to worry our little heads over making a decision.

Anyway, this has triggered some fond memories of the exciting elections of yore, especially 1988 when Chiam See Tong first won in Potong Pasir and the Worker's Party came oh so close to winning Eunos GRC. I think that's what drove the 1991 strategy. Focus and win the fight, one seat at a time. Maybe one of these days I'll blog about those heady days when Singaporeans actually cared enough about getting out the vote.