Met up with some buddies recently to do some catching up. These are the same buddies who I spent 6 ~ 12 months together in Taiwan between 1993 – 1994. For some of us, the last time we met was on probably more than a decade and a half ago and we recently ‘found’ one another again on Facebook. During the meet up, we talked a little about what we currently do for a living.

One of them who is working for the Central Narcotics Board, told us he could not divulge much about his work, but he did say this:

你不要相信他们，那些吸毒的人是不能相信的｡

This simply meant: You do not trust them, those drug takers / addicts simply could not be trusted. This is the same statement made by a drug lord played by Andy Lau in the movie Protégé. Knowing that we will protest his prejudice, he explained that because the CNB arrest so many narcotics offenders regularly, he has heard too many creative and imaginative stories from suspects trying to protest their their innocence. Unfortunately for these suspects, the evidence (such as a urine test) would disprove whatever prize winning (sometimes believable) fiction they spun.

He went on to say that the profile of the drug addicts have changed as Singapore society becomes more affluent. These days it is no longer the lowly educated laborer but professionals, sons and daughters of rich people and those with connections in high places. (He was also glad that even so, none of the powerful people has attempted anything to allow these people to escape justice.)

He mentioned that whenever they take the suspect home to perform a search, or even inform their family members to come and take them out on bail, the main reaction from the parents is often disbelief. Very often, they have to calm a tearful mother claiming that the suspect has been such a good kid at home and how the suspect must have being led astray or ‘forced into it’ by some ‘very bad people’.

This buddy further pointed out this scenario with parents is common even with suspects who have committed any kind of offense as his colleagues in other departments can attest when they swap stories at work. Furthermore, it is almost the same kind of reaction when they deal with the news of the death of their kids. No matter how detailed and thorough the police investigations maybe, the truth is often met with disbelief. Worse of it all, is when mere friends and acquaintances, who are usually not privy to the facts, start making a big fuss over the write-up on the papers on the issue, and aroused public interest in the matter that either hinders an ongoing investigation. Yet, few of us stop to ask just how close are these people really to the people they presume to speak for.

The conversation with this buddy was still fresh on my mind when I noticed a Google Alert email in my Gmail the next day informing me of this article. This alert was set up so I would be informed of any article containing references to the case of the NTU student David Widjaja, who jumped to his death in the campus.

What got my attention was this statement made in the article: The Singapore media has the knack of propagating wild speculations about such suicide cases.

I am no fan of the Singapore media, especially Straits Stooge Times for how it handles coverage for the opposition during the elections and that AWARE matter. No one in his sane mind would argue that the local media has lived up to what is traditionally expected of the Fourth Estate.

However, regardless whether the Singapore media has made ‘wild speculations’ or not, it is clear to me that most of the time family would dispute or reject any negative reporting of the case. In the case of Huang Na, Took Leng How’s parents believed he was not guilty in spite of the investigations. In the case of David Widjaja, his parents believed he did not commit suicide. Thus, I must ask what is the objective of the ‘alternative media’ such as The Temasek Review in reporting the subjective and perhaps emotionally charged opinion of friends and join the chorus of disputes?

If the objective was to showed that our local media is not truthful in their reports, then neither has The Temasek Review nor the blog post(s) in question reveal anything else substantial or important. In fact, by doing so this merely reinforce the division in opinion and no one is any the wiser. If the objective was to point out that the police has not been diligent in their investigations, The Temasek Review nor the blog post(s) in question also failed to inform the people what was really amiss. In my opinion, other than screaming that this is not the truth, it has failed to make the people more informed as to what the truth is. That’s not mentioning one of the blogs referenced requires an invite before they can review what has been written. How does that help in providing the masses with the truth?

As such, it would appear to me that there is only one objective of the article – to further discredit the local media which already did not enjoy much of a reputation among the cynical, liberal and pro-opposition camps in cyberspace. If all the ‘alternative media’ does is to show us just how rotten the traditional media and prop itself up, then it is my slowly building opinion that this media is not any better in providing us the necessary information to make an informed decision or opinion on a matter. Just because traditional media is terrible really doesn’t make them any better. Someone once made this enlightened comment when he was talking about politicians in Taiwan: 除了比烂，还会什么？[Translation: Other than comparing who is worse, what else do they know?] The same can be said about some of the ‘alternative media’ in Singapore.

Again and again, ‘alternative media’ and liberals would raise the specter of George Orwell’s ‘1984’, yet at the same time they flood the general public with irrelevance. Very often it is no better than an online gossip column / tabloid, an alternative avenue for people to pursue their own personal agenda / make complaints, or just simply fighting cocks for opposing opinion camps tearing at one another.

It would be important for us to note that the future portrayed in George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is not the only future that we should fear, but also the alternate future suggested by Aldous Huxley which is equally chilling.

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. Orwell feared there will those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.^[1]

In Orwell’s ‘1984’, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Huxley’s vision, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. Unlike the people in some of the most totalitarian and repressive countries in the world, the people of the Free World stand at the threshold of a new world in which Huxley’s fear (and not Orwell’s) would come true. Perhaps we do not even realise it, because we simply want to be allowed to do we want to do without being required to be responsible for our actions.

In the end, when things become out of control, will we then be screaming for a Big Brother to bring into reality Orwell’s ‘1984’? After all, we humans do want some semblance of order and stability instead of perpetual chaos.

Recommended Reads:
Global Voices – China: Bloggers’ Reviews of Avatar
Growing your tree of prosperity – So Singapore is not good enough for Singaporeans. Now what ?
Growing your tree of prosperity – Zorba the Greek and our perception of time
Growing your tree of prosperity: – Love and politics – Singapore style !