Faisal Wali
Linus Torvalds, showing NVIDIA the middle finger
Well, the most recent post, as of 19th June by Cherian George, about readers or consumers possibly needing a code of conduct really takes the cake this time. To be honest, I had to peruse the website’s heading of Cherian’s post a second time to ensure that it is “journalism.sg” as opposed to L’Observatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Holy See, the Episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church.
Cherian says that readers need a code of conduct because he thinks a 17-year-old “flames the deputy prime minister (DPM)” and it “becomes a national event”. Cherian now wonders if our (in general, the readers) fascination for the frivolous has gone too far. In a condemning tone, Cherian wrote that the kampong spirit that we Singaporeans are cultivating is kay-pohish petty-mindedness, a small-town mentality that tells us that no event is too trivial to turn into a national issue, to quote him ad verbatim.
The question of whether this 17-year-old was flaming the DPM can also be asked of Linus Torvalds if he was flaming NVIDIA when he not only raised the middle finger at NVIDIA, but also said, “NVIDIA, Fuck you!” This is caught on camera and probably preserved for posterity purposes. Linus, the creator of the Linux operating system was clearly unhappy with NVIDIA’s, the chip-maker, lack of attempt to ensure that the NVIDIA hardware works with all versions of Linux. Linus began slamming NVIDIA, declaring it as the worst company that the Linux community has ever dealt with followed by the middle finger plus f-bomb. But, I tend to think Linus had a case for his unhappiness with NVIDIA, as Linux users who experienced issue with NVIDIA chips could testify. I am open to a public display of unhappiness, nothing wrong with middle finger or f-bomb or both.
At 49:00 to 50:00, a member of the audience voices her frustrations with NVIDIA’s failure to accommodate all versions of Linux, which prompted a middle finger and F-bomb by Linus.
The 17-year-old in question is a Saint Andrews Junior College student named Reuban Wang. He participated in a Pre-University Seminar where youths were engaged in a conversation with none other than Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. It turned out that Wang was less than satisfied with Teo’s input in the conversation, pointing out that the latter would answer questions with a question directed at the students “what do you think can be done?”
At other times, Wang felt that Teo skipped questions on freedom of speech, and topics that the People’s Action Party (PAP) will be loathed to discuss. To top that off, he dropped the f-bomb on Teo. Subsequently, he was counselled by his school with regards to his blog post, and initiated the apology with Teo. He has since taken down the blog post.
Now, Cherian thinks our fascination for the frivolous has gone too far, I reiterate again. A greater mystery though is why Cherian, despite his years as a journalist fails to develop a penetrative insight into the reason why the episode involving Reuban has turned into a national issue. I always thought journalists should be well-versed with certain societal truths as they practise their craft, and this episode involving Reuban displayed aspects of certain societal truths in it, and therefore, it is mysterious to me as to why they escape an esteemed academic like Cherian.
However, moving on, there is no better way for me to illustrate this with two examples from the military that I bet even Teo could identify with. For my first example, I will borrow a quote from President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 2001 film, Pearl Harbour, directed by Michael Bay – “Ah…Submarine Commander…I like Submarine Commanders…they don’t have time for bullshit and neither do I.”
Submarine commander: What is the last coordinates of the enemy destroyer?
Deputy: What do you think?
Submarine commander: How many of our torpedo tubes are active?
Deputy: What do you think?
Submarine commander (in exasperation): Fuck you, understand!
Was Wang flaming Teo as Cherian alleges? Reading through a saved copy of Wang’s original blog post does not suggest so. I must admit that I sympathise with Teo being at the receiving end of an f-bomb, but at the same time, people have to understand why the f-bomb was dropped in the first place.
In truth, how Wang reacted is similar to how many of us would react in our daily lives and I am sure there will be people who can identify with it. There are those who want answers to questions they ask, they are not patient with let’s say, a person replying with another question, or deflecting the question back to them. These are the people in Roosevelt’s words, the “submarine commander”-types who do not have time for “bullshits”. Ironically, there is no prize for guessing Wang’s reaction to Teo “what do you think?” liner – “Flaming piece of bullshit”.
Teo may have wanted students to do more self-reflection and thinking of their own, but students like Wang also have their own expectations with regards to the conversation. So really, it is a clash of Wang’s expectations versus Teo’s intentions. Hence, we cannot really say Wang was flaming Teo. He is merely expressing impatience at Teo’s failure to meet his expectations.
Now, we come to the next puzzle, though it looks bleeding obvious to me, as to why readers turn this trivial issue into a national one, and so, now let’s move on to the next example.
There was once a sadistic naval officer. He takes extreme joy in torturing his men, and his men hated his guts for that.
Naval officer: Run to that tree and back again!
Men: (huffing and puffing, running to the tree and back again)
Naval officer: Why so slow? Run to the tree and back again, 10 times!
Tan Ah Kow (losing his cool): Sir, Fuck you, understand!
Afterwards, back in the bunk: Thundering claps of applause for Ah Kow from his fellow men.
In the first place, Wang dropped the f-bomb on Teo immediately after a major event – the Hougang by-election. Teo was to become the major driver of PAP candidate’s Desmond Choo’s campaign in Hougang. During the hustings, Teo chose to dwell on Workers’ Party (WP) candidate Png Eng Huat’s integrity and [in]ability to qualify for the lesser position of the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP). This was to become a sore point among supporters and sympathisers to the opposition cause.
WP’s secretary-general Low Thia Khiang expressed his disappointment with the overall nature of the by-election campaign, which he felt was riddled with character assassination and baseless attacks. And if that was not enough, Teo suggested that Low could resort to legal means to resolve his grievances.
Clearly, unhappiness with the way Teo conducted the by-election campaign was evident. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that there are people out there who like to see Teo getting “fucked” (my apologies to Teo, but I am telling it like it is, and writing on a truth that I have observed), and conveniently, Wang provided the cannon fodder. It is similar to the second example where the Navy men would like to see their officer getting fucked, and applauding Tan Ah Kow who has done it.
Hence, this is the second truth I was hinting at. It was no accident that a seemingly trivial issue could escalate into a national one, starting with the differences between Teo’s intention and Wang’s expectations, the dropping of the f-bomb, and then, the unhappiness with Teo playing a huge part in the escalation.
To conclude, yes, Cherian is pontificating. The suggestion of readers needing a code of conduct is nothing short of ridiculous. Isn’t that how democracy works? For the use of a vulgar term, don’t the voters decide whether their political leaders should be “fucked” or rewarded? The truth is, if one politician deserves to get “fucked” in the voters’ eyes, there is no stopping him from getting “fucked”, or no preventing any applause of those who verbally “fuck” him in public. There is nothing wrong with “telling it like it is”. Bollocks to some readers’ code of conduct. However, if the chaps at Vatican City are looking for someone to draft 5 commandments on the Internet Code of conduct among readers who are followers of the faith, Cherian is the most qualified person.
—
Photo courtesty of Greenbyte.ch
Hi Donaldson, This is an intriguing response to my piece. I’m trying to wrap my head around it. I argued that a 17-year-old saying FU to the DPM in his personal blog is no big deal and that readers should have thicker skins if we are as cosmopolitan and sophisticated as we imagine ourselves to be. Your writer disagrees vehemently. So is he saying that the huge public reaction, which even resulted in the boy having to meet the DPM to apologise, was a necessary and proportionate response? I certainly don’t think so. As chief editor of NAR, you’ve said to me many times that you believe that the solution to online offence is for readers to develop thicker skins and not overreact to everything they find unpleasant. With regards to FU-gate and various other incidents involving private citizens (including your own “flamebait” storm in a teacup last November), I totally agree: in many cases, the solution is to just look the other way instead of getting so worked up and turning it into a national incident. But based on the article you’ve posted here, are you refining your position? Do you now think readers should treat a personal blog by an unknown 17-year-old as if it was a public talk by a luminary like Linus Torvalds? As always, I am keen to learn from you.
“The suggestion of readers needing a code of conduct is nothing short of ridiculous. Isn’t that how democracy works?”
The writer seems to have a rather superficial understanding of democracy, unless he is talking about mob rule in which voters embrace the “f***ing” of politicians and “telling it as it is” without any regard for a code of conduct.
Case in point: Heard of Neil Munro? He is an American jounalist writer with a newspaper called The Daily Caller. Recently, he rudely interrupted a speech by the POTUS. Barack Obama was reading some prepared remarks on June 15, 2012. Obama lost his cool and ticked off Munro, who was also roundly criticized by his fellow journalists for violating the code of conduct. In American democracy, questioning the POTUS and holding him to account is a citizens’ right. But to interrupt him while he is talking violates an unwritten code of conduct observed by journalists.
Democracy means that politicians are held to account by the electorate, but it doesn’t mean there is no code of conduct and that politician can be insulted with impunity. All western democracies have their own code of conduct. In the UK, speech promoting regicide is illegal and British freedom of speech laws contain many caveats against threatening, abusive and insulting speech. Even in the messy, rambunctious House of Commons where an Opposition member may heckle the PM during Prime Minister’s Questions, they don’t drown out the PM or shout him down before he finishes answering your question. He is allowed to have his say. Needless to say, they don’t use vulgarities to “tell it as it is.” In Germany you may criticize the Government, but it is illegal to make statements disparaging the President. France guarantees its citizens the freedom of speech, but it is illegal to insult a public servant (including firefighters, teachers and bus conducters!) The constitution of Greece and Italy makes it illegal for their citizens to insult the President.
A code of conduct is essential for the smooth functioning of a Democratic society. The Western Democracies recognize this and so should we. The internet or blogsophere of a country is a part of its society and it should have a code of conduct although the nuts-and-bolts of how it is to be enforced and the degree of tolerance is debatable. A code doesn’t have to be a formally written one, but one that is evolved through dialogue, negotiation and courtesy.
Ah Heng:
I do not see how relevant your talk of a journalism of code of conduct is. Journalism is a profession, and no different from medicine. There is a, professional body, that represents the profession, be it a medical association that represents doctors, a teachers’ association that represents teachers, a journalists’ association that represents journalists.
Each of these association not only has its code of conduct, it probably has ethical guidelines too. They have the interest to uphold the credibility of the profession. That I agree.
What Cherian is suggesting here is a code of conduct for readers?! I mean come on.
This article seems to confuse the point of Geroge’s piece. It spends a long time justifying the students’ words, and gives a weak argument as to why it does deserve national attention (because people are gratified to hear someone curse at the DPM?). There is a lot of frivolous ‘news’ becoming national. This argument that barely makes sense for FU-gate, doesn’t even begin to cover all the other frivolous ‘news’.
Z, don’t think it was the writer’s intention to state why the FU by the student deserves national attention. It rather tries to explain a sociological phenomenon/truth/reason as to why it ended up receiving national attention. For more info, follow the Facebook exchange between Cherian and NAR on the NAR Facebook wall
Cherian George Hi Donaldson Tan and company: This is an intriguing response to my piece. I’m trying to wrap my head around it. I argued that a 17-year-old saying FU to the DPM in his personal blog is no big deal and that Singaporeans should have thicker skins if we are as cosmopolitan and sophisticated as we imagine ourselves to be. Your writer disagrees vehemently. So is he saying that the huge public reaction, even resulting in the boy having to meet the DPM to apologise, was a necessary and proportionate response? I certainly don’t think so. As chief editor of NAR, you’ve said to me many times that you believe that the solution to online offence is for readers to develop thicker skins and not overreact to everything they find unpleasant. With regards to FU-gate and various other incidents involving private citizens (including your own “flamebait” storm in a teacup last November, which resulted in your being interviewed by the police), I totally agree: in many cases, the solution is to just look the other way instead of getting so worked up and turning it into a national incident. But based on the article you’ve posted and comments above, are you refining your position? What’s your stand now? Do you now think readers should treat a personal blog by an unknown 17-year-old as if it was a public talk by a luminary like Linus Torvalds? As always, I am keen to learn from you.
New Asia Republic Cherian George, actually what was written was very simple. Firstly, the 17 yo wasn’t flaming DPM as you claimed. As it was mentioned, he expects answers to the questions, but DPM’s intentions are different. Linus Torvalds wasn’t flaming NVIDIA, basically, in both examples of FUs, it is a case of expression of frustration, NVIDIA stonewalling Linux users, and DPM failure to respond to questions which frustrated Reuban. With regards to readers’ response to Reuban’s blog, it is more or less attributed to DPM’s declining popularity or “gained notoriety” (as some people like to put it), that resulted in the escalation. It is not a storm in the tea cup in the sense that there are already negative sentiments on the ground to the DPM due to the by-elections events, which resulted in the escalation or in your words, making a “national event” out of a minor one. What the writer has shown is that probably this piece of truth probably did not occur to you. It is no accident that FU by a Reuban resulted in a national event in your words. The negative sentiments are already fuel on the ground, all it took was a lighted matchstick, and Reuban provided it. To be very frank and honest with you, if it was Florence Nightingale instead of DPM who was the victim of an FU, the reactions will be much different. I guess where the difference in perspectives lies is that we tend to have more faith in people’s sense of natural justice. Online code of conduct, as the title of your article and your article suggest, we do not think is necessary
Cherian George I think the difference of opinion is actually subtler than New Asia Republic makes it out to be. Where I differ is that if I have “negative sentiments”, I will either speak up (by name) or if I don’t have the courage I’ll shut up – but I would not take cover behind a 17-year-old boy who, according to psychological and legal convention, is not equipped to deal with the consequences of his words. It’s odd that among the adults who turned this kid into an icon, most of them stayed behind the cloak of anonymity themselves. If the ground sentiment in this case is that it is OK for adults to stay in the shadows, and push a boy from obscurity into the national limelight to fight their battles, then I confess that I’m not with the ground on this.
New Asia Republic @ Cherian George, we do not think the article is interested in the part about people are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity as you purported. Rather, accurately, it explains why a kid receives widespread support, becoming some martyr. We guess you tend to associate “lynching in anonymity” with support and applause for the kid. The article is interested in explaining why the kid receive widespread applause. In your original article, you even wrote how it was turned into a national issue. Sociologically speaking, there are circumstances in which a person can become a martyr or hero. It happens in Timbucktoo, US, India, everywhere. Look, the truth is ppl shooting barbs from the cloak of anonymity has always existed. Like it or not, it has and always existed. If you trawl through sammyboy forums, blogs, a certain facebook page called Demon-Cratic Singapore, ppl (even using anonymous facebook accounts) have been hurling barbs from the cloak of anonymity at DPM from day one probably even before the hustings began. The fact that this kid becomes a martyr has not so much to do with “lying in the shadows”, but rather the larger picture of the DPM’s declining popularity, and the support for this kid who stood up for it, is the symptom of declining popularity or “increased notoreity”. Look, ultimately, whether one deserves widespread support or despising, it depends on one’s actions. Which is why, you were asked if it was Florence Nightingale who got the f-bomb instead of DPM, what do you think the reaction have been? Was it karma for the actions during the by-elections? Karma is a real bitch, isn’t it? Lastly, we are surprised that up till this day, a simple truth still escapes you as to why ppl hurl barbs from the shadows and anonymously? Did you remember the chap who was called in by the police for the “burn” remarks on a member of the ruling party? And ironically, this kid’s experience will even encourage ppl to do it anonymously. He wrote on the blog and his school counselled him and made him apologise. As it is, we do agree with the writer that certain truths do escape you
Robert:
Are readers not citizens too? I have furnished some examples to show that western democracies have codes of conduct for their citizens while affording them freedom of speech. Of course the spectrum of tolerance differs with each society, but the commonality is that all democratic societies have codes of conduct which extends to the internet. if you are American and were to set up a website dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Federal Government, chances are the FBI or the Secret Service will come knockin’ on your front door.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/secret-service-investigates-ted-nugent-remarks-on-obama/
I don’t think a code of conduct for netizens is that preposterous considering that the parameters for one have already been broadly laid out: People who make defamatory statements or inflammatory comments on race and religion on the web can and have been charged. Police reports can be made against people for saying offensive things through Social Media. There already is a code of conduct. It’s just that we are in the midst of its (necessarily) messy evolution.
Ah Heng:
Hold on, what type of readers you are referring to?
People who make defamatory statements, tend to be blogger/writers.
Not sure, but I clearly remember Cherian said COC for READERS.
I can somehow agree with you that maybe writers/bloggers should be advised to practise a bit of journalism ethics or code of conduct from any journalism body, but readers?
Ultimately, they are free to choose what they want to consume. What sort of code of conduct? They choose to support what works they want to support.
Somehow, people tend to mix up blogging and reading.
If READERS need to be advised on a code of conduct, then we are really living in a police state, though I agree writers/bloggers, it is advisable to follow some journalism body’s code of conduct.
There is no need to go that far down the route.
Robert:
I understood Cherian George’s idea of a code of conduct for readers to mean “netizens”, i.e. people who read and presumably respond to what they read by “sharing” articles on Social Media, commenting on them or writing articles/blog posts/Fb notes/tweets of their own.
There would be no necessity of any code if readers merely read. As you well know, in reality, the relationship between readers and writers is an interactive one and sometimes lines are blurred. Readers write about what they have read and readers can be rational critics or internet demagogues.
I don’t agree with your view that “If READERS need to be advised on a code of conduct, then we are really living in a police state,”. Hollywood films carry “viewers discretion” advice in trailers. Is the US of A – a country where people can heckle its President and not get arrested – a police state?
If health advise is found on beer cans and cigarette packs, why not on the internet? I’m not in favour of a micro-managed internet like The Great Firewall Of China. No one seems to be advocating that anyway. But on the other hand, a code of conduct – whether formal or informal – can be gradually evolved through a process of negotiation between the people and the Government. There can be no free-for-all.
Heng, the way I understand netizen is the passive kind and active kind. Probably, the active kind will respond, could we call them semi-bloggers? Cherian used another word in his article, consumer. Not entirely sure.
Consumers have their interests. But look, even if this episode involving Teo blew up, so what? What’s the deal anyway? No rioting, and all the other doomsday scenario, as they mentioned.
Well, you are assuming that consumers should be regulated because if not regulated, it can lead to serious consequences?
Still cannot figure what do Cherian mean by regulating readers or consumers, so to speak.
Seriously, what serious repercussions happened after Teo was F..ed by a kid? A lot of online activity, but what serious thing happen?
Heng, to summarise, CHerian is just being apocalyptic. Actually, this blowing up of an FU is really nothing.
This is why I agree his code of conduct for readers is very ridiculous.
Yeah, and the US of A didn’t start to fall apart because Neil Munro rudely interrupted Obama. But it was seen as a big deal. Why? Because someone crossed a line. It was rude behaviour. That’s the big deal.
I think you are overreacting to Cherian George’s post. Did he propose that his code be signed into legislation? Don’t think so. To suggest a standard of discernment is not really that absurd right? It’s like doctors publishing advice that people who drink should drink moderately and then explaining what amounts are considered moderate. Drinkers are free to take that advice or not. No need to say the doctor is being “apocalyptic.”
No one is over-reacting to Cherian’s COC. I am mystified by the need of it.
Crossed the line? Well that is subjective. What is ur threshold then? If you think that such a behaviour crosses the line, then it boils down to differences in level of thresholds.
So, tell, is rude behaviour really such a big deal? Didn’t see any riot at Pasir Punngol GRC, Teo’s ward.
It all depends on your threshold. To me, the word Fuck is part of everyday language. Hear it among co-workers. So, what’s the deal then?
I know that Cherian never suggested his code to be pushed into legislation, but I am mystified that he even talk about it.
Robert:
You are pushing the bar for “big deal” too high. Something is a big deal only when there are riots? Come on, be serious.
If you envision a society in which kids can feel free to publicly use the F word on Ministers, public servants or any other person for that matter, then you should say so clearly. Even the Western democracies that believe in freedom of expression won’t agree with you. Even the politicians with the most vehement opposition to President Obama or David Cameron would not use the F word in a piece of writing address to them. You know why? Because they know that do so is rude and would cause them political points.
You wrote: “No one is overreacting.” But you have overreacted. You have suggested that Cherian George’s code leads to the path to a police state. If that is not overreacting, I don’t know what that is. Cherian George is not a politician, just a writer and if you take a step back and read his post again, the sum and substance of his post is a suggestion that readers should be more discerning. The word “code” probably triggered off some anti-establishment instinct, eh?
Heng, whether or not a person deserves the F-word is dependent on his actions. Whether or not people support is also dependent on whether the person deserves to be f – ed.
So, the question is whether Teo deserves to be F-ed?
I don’t think you should be quick to assume people will disagree with the use of f word. If ppl deserve to be f-ked, then by all means.
BTW, please don’t assume all anti-establishments types are against codes. Read about Libertarianism, limited governance, etc.
You said Cherian suggested readers should be discerning. My counter-argument is readers are free to choose whose cause to support, or who should they glorify.
You talk about the journalist interrupting President Obama, that was why I challenged you if it was such a big deal anyway, just to clarify.
No one is pushing the bar. But really, so was the kid f-ffing Teo such a big deal?
Honestly, there are ppl who dislike Teo.
It is really a small matter? What calls for COC and for readers to be discerning? Sorry, but I think Cherian misses the point.
Why don’t we discuss about whether Teo deserves to be f-ffed to begin?
Heng, I disgree that MINISTERS, CIVIL SERVANTS, or the biggest shot in Singapore are beneath criticism, or even spared from the use of an f-word.
If one is being a f-ker, then really, he deserves to be f-ked. This has got nothing to do with establishment, anti-establishment views. It is really a question of whether a person deserves to be f-ked.
Robert:
I could go on and on, but it seems that there is little chance of a frutiful discussion since you are veering off into the realm of subjectivity. Discussing who “deserves” the F word? Is there any objective criterion? There isn’t. Those who use the F word on someone – whether a public figure or not – naturally feels that the subject is deserving. What’s there to discuss? You cannot reason a man out of what he was not reasoned into in the first place.
And this is my cue to bow out.
As it is, Ah Heng, it has always been a subjective discussion from the start.
As it is, I also agree to disagree. It has been my pleasure exchanging points with you. No hard feelings ya?
Cheers, man!
None at all, Robert. Perhaps we’ll talk again in another article, another topic
“If one is being a f-ker, then really, he deserves to be f-ked. This has got nothing to do with establishment, anti-establishment views. It is really a question of whether a person deserves to be f-ked”, unquote.
If and whence it is justifiable, swearing is just being spontaneous and natural meaning honest.
patriot