James Gomez
Dr James Gomez is the Executive Director of the NGO Singaporeans for Democracy. He is also a member of the Singapore Democratic Party.
Make a discerning choice with your vote
“THEY” have always been around, but they often put their head out and “peak” during elections and in the run up to Singapore`s 11th general elections it will be no different. So who are THEY?
They are the “commentators” often sought after by local mainstream “cub” reporters. The old media dogs also use them, but only when necessary and when it suits their purposes.
These commentators are often local, if not they work in local instituitions and are always handy to speak “expertly” on local politics and stake their say on civil society and political parties` developments.
They are spectator commentators, reviewing websites and other online content. Occasionally braving a public actively like a large public forum or rally where they might be less invisible. Often they shy away from smaller seminars where they would have to actually interact with the people and organizations they comment on.
Apart from being media commentators, they also are speakers at forums which the instituitions they belong to organizes. From such perches, they also comment on politics and civil society and such musings are too covered by the local media.
So what is wrong with such commentators and why be wary of their pronoucements?
We should be wary of such commentators because they speak about processes and instituitions such as selected civil society groups and opposition parties with whom they have no direct access or privy to their inner workings.
The damaging part is their very comments are multiplied in the mainstream media and run the risk of being taken up by readers as accurate. The danger is that an inaccurate image of the Singapore political opposition and civil society is presented and perpetuated.
We often zoom in and complain about the local media, but it is also important to keep an eye on these “commentators” because often they are the source of the problems.
Their “comments” help shape some of the local mainstream media reports. Other times their viewpoints go further in “academic” writings and can influence those who read or cite them.
So come this election, be a bit discerning or at least beware of these commentators!
And so should we also be wary of academics-cum-politicians who are based overseas, are hardly in Singapore, but who pops up when the elections are near to set up civil society groups (eg. SfD) and join political parties (eg. SDP).
Gomez is so humorous….. and ironic!
Also, he said: “These commentators are often local, if not they work in local instituitions (sic) and are always handy to speak “expertly” on local politics and stake their say on civil society and political parties` developments.”
At least these commentators are more local than Gomez.
Also, he said: “We should be wary of such commentators because they speak about processes and instituitions such as selected civil society groups and opposition parties with whom they have no direct access or privy to their inner workings.”
Well, then Gomez should NOT comment about the government and PAP because he himself is not “privy to their inner workings”.
Wah, today, I learnt something ABOUT Gomez – he does not have a mirror!
We should be wary of such commentators because they speak about processes and instituitions such as selected civil society groups and opposition parties with whom they have no direct access or privy to their inner workings.
I do not quite agree with this statement. In many ways, a commentator (implied in this article as an academic or researcher) may not have a complete knowledge of an issue, but their understanding of the larger situation may provide a different perspective than what we have.
Furthermore, it may be better than they do not have “inside” information, because it is so with us as well. If misunderstanding in a group arises due to failure to communicate, then wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the group to remedy that? What’s more, the people with “direct access or privy to their inner workings” are probably members of the group, which makes it questionable if their viewpoints are objective and unbiased.
So yes, be aware of the possible tilt in analyses by commentators, but it’s not so much because they do not have inside information, and more of the possible bias they may bear, as well as the potential bias of the media report that uses their words.
Agree with BryanT on Gomez not having a mirror.
Well said BryanT.
Now we can see how conceited James Gomez is.
Anyway he was one that me would say ‘cheng si bu zhu, bai si yu yi’, meaning one that spoils the show. He participated in the last two elections and on both occasions, he got himself and his party into some silly problems.
And here, he talks liked as though he knows everything under the sky!
Whichever party that’s going to field him as a candidate in the coming election got to consider carefully. Is he well versed with the art of running a society and governing a country? Which he has never done before.
And me wonders how voters will react if they read this article by Gomez. How about putting it in the Temasek Review for cybercitizen’s response?
patriot