Welcome to my world. Hold on tight. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Support Leslie Chew - aka Demon-cratic!
Hi all, I am currently working on another article but I just had to post a quick message of support to Leslie Chew who has been arrested and interrogated. Personally, I think Leslie is extremely talented as a cartoonist and he is extremely brave in courting controversy in Singapore with his cartoons. Perhaps because I have lived in the UK for long, I just take it for granted that of course we can make fun of politicians. Heck, we do that all the time in the UK, often on prime time TV for the BBC. Leslie's arrest (and treatment by the authorities) reminds me that he is trying to do a very British form of political satire in a very different kind of country.
It was pointed out to me that there are no valid reasons for the police to lock Leslie up for 2 nights if he agreed to turn up for the police interview. People who have been investigated for far greater crimes (such as Pastor Kong Hee and his colleagues from CHC) were not locked up pending the police interviews. There are many unanswered questions to say the least. If you haven't seen his latest comic strip, here it is to fill you in with the story so far.
Heck, I am equally critical of the PAP on my blog, but I am currently sitting here in my living room in central London writing as a British citizen (cue MC Hammer's U Can't Touch This) but Leslie Chew was a sitting duck in Singapore just waiting for that knock on the door to come one day and it finally did. In support of Leslie, I have reproduced his latest comic strip (see above) explaining what happened to him and also the two other comics which got him into trouble in the first place. I fear they may disappear from his Facebook page soon, so I am preserving them here on Limpeh's blog in a show of solidarity and support for Leslie. Let's have a look at the first one that got him into trouble.
Okay, we all know the Michael Palmer case was extremely embarrassing for the PAP - and for them to go on to lose the by-election which followed, well, it seems to me that they have some serious issues to sort out in house in order to examine how they managed to lose the by-election. It seems almost petty for them to kick up such a big fuss over what is a cartoon that was speculating what went on behind the scenes. Is this an accurate representation of what happened behind the scenes? Probably not, but that's not the point - the citizens are going to talk about what happened anyway and by making such a big fuss about a less than flattering speculation of the course of events, it just comes across as an incredibly petty reaction. Granted the government couldn't listen in and censor every single conversation that went on from Tampines to Boon Lay in that period, they swooped in and targeted Leslie Chew as he had put this on Facebook which the government cannot censor. Rather than blaming people like Leslie Chew, the PAP should really analyse why they lost the faith of the voters and accept some blame for their failure.
This is the part I am struggling to understand - what can they possibly gain by targeting Leslie Chew? The guy is not a politician - he is a cartoonist, a comedian blessed with great drawing skills. Leslie Chew isn't turning Singaporeans against the PAP. Hello newsflash. Many Singaporeans have already made up their minds on the PAP already and they don't need someone like Leslie Chew to tell them what to think. All they need to do is to look at the country they live in and base their opinion on their everyday experiences, using public transport, watching the news and observing what is happening. 60.14% actually like what they see enough to want to vote for the PAP at the last elections. So someone like Leslie Chew would appeal to someone like me who already hates the PAP obviously, but would he convert anyone from a PAP supporter to a PAP hater? I don't actually think so. We tend to seek out sources of news and entertainment that confirms what we believe in rather than the opposite.
Let me give you an example. My regular readers will know how strongly I support gay rights and gay marriage - earlier this evening, I accidentally surfed onto a Facebook page where there were some anti-gay marriage comments. I was instantly outraged and offended by the homophobic content I encountered and almost felt the urge to respond by writing, "you ignorant, homophobic fucking bigot, go fuck yourself with a giant cactus!" Then I took a deep breath, closed the browser window and went to get some ice cream. What is the point of arguing with such people on Facebook? Likewise, if a pro-PAP supporter stumbles upon Leslie Chew's anti-PAP comics on Facebook, what would they do? Some of them might argue with Leslie if they disagree with his observations - but I suspect most of them would do what I did, just surf away and go look at something else on the web which doesn't antagonize them.
In the same way that I didn't become homophobic after having read those nasty homophobic remarks on Facebook earlier this evening, pro-PAP supporters are not going to change their political allegiances after having seen the Demoncratic cartoons. No, once we have made up our minds on these issues, we are not easily swayed. Does the PAP have that little faith in their supporters? Does the PAP actually believe that they will actually lose votes because of these comics? Oh please lah, tolong lah. Newsflash people. It doesn't make a difference. What will make a difference would be bread & butter issues like the situation with FTs and the Singaporean job market, national service, CPF, the education system, the public transport system and other such vital issues that make a real difference to the quality of life of ordinary Singaporeans. Duh. Let's look at the next controversial comic.
Again, this was a badly handled incident that could have so easily been nipped in the bud by a simple PR statement. Groan. Instead, the PAP media machine didn't have the balls to deal with the issue (because they were all so in awe and afraid of the great LKY). If I was handling their PR, I would simply explain that it would have been impossible for LKY to have listed the full list of countries where foreign talents have come to work in Singapore as there are just way too many. I would have then released some statistics about the Malaysians who are already working in Singapore - remember the Malaysian scholar Alvin Tan? There are indeed plenty of Malaysians and Indonesians already working in Singapore - what LKY says (or doesn't say) really shouldn't matter, we need to look at the hard evidence, the statistics, rather than dwell on LKY's words. The hard evidence from the last 20, 30 years means so much more than mere words.
I could have so easily crafted a very neutral statement based on statistics that are easily available to the public and defused any kind of tension from the situation within 200 words. But we all know the PAP are bloody useless and totally stupid when it comes to PR and they have fucked up time and time again. They are just too arrogant to realize what they are doing makes them look totally stupid. This notion that LKY's words were perceived to be racist is not just Leslie Chew's opinion, but something that was widely discussed by many on Facebook and other forms of social media. Once again, Leslie Chew was only telling his audience what they want to hear and whilst it may have reflected his own opinion on the issue, it was certainly echoing what was already being said by many of social media. So where do we draw the line then? If Leslie Chew could be arrested for this cartoon, then what about all the other Singaporeans who had expressed the same opinion on social media? What about blatantly anti-PAP bloggers like myself then, for I had shared the controversial cartoons and have discussed the issue? What about others who have the balls to use humour to discuss Singaporean politics then - like Mr Brown? Does the PAP want to censor and arrest us all, just to silence all their critics? Where would you draw the line then?
The PAP have little to gain and everything to lose if they treat Leslie Chew harshly. Even those who were not fans of his Demoncratic comics were appalled to see the way he was arrested and interrogated like a criminal and the tide of public opinion on social media is overwhelmingly sympathetic towards Leslie Chew. Times have changes and the PAP desperately needs to wake the hell up and understand how to play the PR game in this day and age. They are only digging their own grave by acting so stupidly on the PR front. It is 2013, not 1983, but they still behave like it is the early 1980s. Alex Au was let off with a slap on the wrist and a caution when he found himself in a similar situation recently and I hope that is what will happen to Leslie Chew. Leslie Chew is not a criminal and should not be treated as such! Please readers, support Demoncratic, support Leslie Chew and support the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression in Singapore. Be strong Leslie - you have friends who support you.
Update: A very well written article can be found here, written by Kirsten Han. I like what she wrote about the Streisand Effect, her analysis is spot on. What I found even more interesting is that she has attracted comments by very pro-PAP supporters (are they afraid to comment on Limpeh's blog, given how clearly vehemently anti-PAP I am?) Look, I am all for the freedom of speech and these PAP supporters have the right to express themselves - but some of the arguments they come up with are really flimsy and downright stupid. Yes Caleb Chao, I am talking about you. Any comment which begins with, "I do not have proof..." means that your following comment is no more than a wild speculation on your part with no more evidence than your own gut instincts and cannot be taken seriously. So feel free to express your opinion on Leslie Chew if you want, but stop trying to tell us what you think the rest of the country feels on the issue because by your very own admission Caleb, you have absolutely no freaking clue. Ha! Bodoh goondu.
Still remember that case with the former WP (and now SDP) candidate who did not file his candidacy form as the media stated all the time in 2006? The method actually backfired, and during the last few days prior to voting, people were getting really sick and tired of all that propagandistic stuff. Even the mother of a friend who is pro-PAP actually complained to my friend that they played on the opposition candidate being a liar too much such that it got annoying. Even getting the Minister Mentor to speak up and call him a liar???!! Please....at that point in time, my sister had said that if they prosecuted him on arresting him at the airport before he left for Sweden, the PAP would not be 'gentlemen'(she used the word 'junzi')....
Leslie Chew looks like the new scapegoat of the PAP. I have seen so many of these political cartoons in Canada before, and even the attack ads (hahahah...), and as much as some of them get rather vitriolic, it is a basic aspect of any healthily functioning democracy. The PAP has to really work at cleaning up itself instead of finding scapegoats.
I agree with everything you've said Kev. Your last line is so so so totally true.
"The PAP has to really work at cleaning up itself instead of finding scapegoats."
That's arrogance that is stopping them from learning from their own mistakes, because they are looking for scapegoats, rather than being humble enough to look at their own mistakes.
The government did invite a lot of Malaysians here to work, study and even become citizens, but almost all are Chinese. It's not about the nationality, but the race.
Hi there. Thanks for your comment, I am not here to debate whether or not race was an issue - you're an intelligent Singaporean, you can look at the evidence and make up your own mind on the issue (and evidently, you have done so already). I am just talking about how I would have handled it from a PR perspective to defuse the tension that had built up - it would have been possible to sensitively handle such a situation and open a dialogue to talk about the grey areas involved.
My dad, for example, was one such Malaysian who came to Singapore, but he's not pure Chinese, he's mixed and so am I. See? There's always that grey area to wriggle around even in a controversial issue like this.
My point is that someone like me can use PR to deal with such an issue (in the UK we call such people spin doctors) but the PR skills of the PAP are clunky, clumsy and amateur at best, as epitomized by the arrest of Leslie Chew.
> the PR skills of the PAP are clunky, clumsy and amateur at best
Have to agree with you on the above. It does not help when their friends and/or sycophants would rather shield them from the ugly truths than to tell them point-blank that they have a serious PR issue (on top of their policy issues). E.g. Consider the way my friend defended her friend, a PAP minister who was criticized for his poor PR skills. http://winkingdoll.blogspot.ca/2013/04/brunch-with-former-bureaucrats.html
IMHO, I doubt that PAP will improve in its PR skills -- going by their modus operandi. It seems that one old man's motto of "if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac" continues to run. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
Btw, if one reads the extended context of the "knuckle-dusters" quote, one will find it very instructive of the kind of society that someone envisioned/moulded Singapore to be.
The thing is WD, the PAP didn't need any form of PR skills in the past, before the age of the internet as Singaporeans back then were less demanding and less able to think for themselves - my blogging like that, exchanging my views so frankly with so many Singaporeans in such a short space of time (my blog traffic went through the roof in the last 36 hours over this issue) would not have been possible without internet technology as it is and the PAP cannot censor all of the internet. Clearly, they have not understood how social media works and this will ultimately be their downfall.
OK, thanks for your comment - you know, I have just spent 30 minutes playing around on Bitstrip and it is fascinating. I am tempted to even create my own comics now but whilst it does take away some element of drawing (by hand, that is), I spent 30 minutes just creating an avatar and the amount of work that must go into a 6 frame comic must be at least several hours! Even if he does use a programme like that, I still give him credit for creating a set of characters and weaving a narrative that has been extremely successful.
I think this is not so much about PR, it is about instilling fear. They can and will expend public resources to track people like Leslie Chew. And, they are petty.
Like it or not, everything is about PR - even using this 'instilling fear' method is a kind of PR, albeit not one that you may not traditionally consider PR. Think of how many marketing campaigns appeal to your sense of fear in order to make you think, "if I don't buy this product, I will not be beautiful, my children will get sick, I will lose money etc." This kind of scaremongering sells millions of dollars worth of products & services a year - because they know fear is a great motivator, it is an easy button to press.
So my friend, fear & PR go hand in hand. PR can press several buttons on the subject to create the desired response. However, the question you have to ask yourself at the end of the day is this: will this episode win them or lose them votes at the next election? Will they scare people into voting PAP again? Or will they disgust citizens who will turn en masse to the opposition?
I think in this case there are two effects. The first is, as you have described, the direct PR effect. It can immediately turn some people away by making them disgusted. These are the borderline voters.
The second effect is a higher-level one that affects the "other" side's PR ability, i.e., using fear to stop others from speaking. By damaging the PR ability of the other side, the rate of vote erosion on the not-so-borderline voters might slow down enough to offset the immediate lost through the first level effect. In terms of the commercial marketing analogy, this is like hiring thugs to beat up a competitor's marketing staff en-route to work so that their whole marketing department dare not go to work for some time.
Having said that, it is probably quite hard to predict which effect will dominate. My hunch is their move will backfire.
Good analysis - I think we can measure the public reaction via the spike in my traffic in the last few days. I received about 30% of the traffic to my blog this month within 36 hours of this article, so clearly, the public is reacting to it - but we'll have to wait and see what the long term effect will be and this depends on the kind of sentence Leslie Chew gets. Imagine if they jail him for 2 years ... how will the public react?
Still remember that case with the former WP (and now SDP) candidate who did not file his candidacy form as the media stated all the time in 2006? The method actually backfired, and during the last few days prior to voting, people were getting really sick and tired of all that propagandistic stuff. Even the mother of a friend who is pro-PAP actually complained to my friend that they played on the opposition candidate being a liar too much such that it got annoying. Even getting the Minister Mentor to speak up and call him a liar???!! Please....at that point in time, my sister had said that if they prosecuted him on arresting him at the airport before he left for Sweden, the PAP would not be 'gentlemen'(she used the word 'junzi')....
ReplyDeleteLeslie Chew looks like the new scapegoat of the PAP. I have seen so many of these political cartoons in Canada before, and even the attack ads (hahahah...), and as much as some of them get rather vitriolic, it is a basic aspect of any healthily functioning democracy. The PAP has to really work at cleaning up itself instead of finding scapegoats.
I agree with everything you've said Kev. Your last line is so so so totally true.
Delete"The PAP has to really work at cleaning up itself instead of finding scapegoats."
That's arrogance that is stopping them from learning from their own mistakes, because they are looking for scapegoats, rather than being humble enough to look at their own mistakes.
The government did invite a lot of Malaysians here to work, study and even become citizens, but almost all are Chinese. It's not about the nationality, but the race.
ReplyDeleteHi there. Thanks for your comment, I am not here to debate whether or not race was an issue - you're an intelligent Singaporean, you can look at the evidence and make up your own mind on the issue (and evidently, you have done so already). I am just talking about how I would have handled it from a PR perspective to defuse the tension that had built up - it would have been possible to sensitively handle such a situation and open a dialogue to talk about the grey areas involved.
DeleteMy dad, for example, was one such Malaysian who came to Singapore, but he's not pure Chinese, he's mixed and so am I. See? There's always that grey area to wriggle around even in a controversial issue like this.
My point is that someone like me can use PR to deal with such an issue (in the UK we call such people spin doctors) but the PR skills of the PAP are clunky, clumsy and amateur at best, as epitomized by the arrest of Leslie Chew.
Hi LIFT,
Delete> the PR skills of the PAP are clunky, clumsy and amateur at best
Have to agree with you on the above. It does not help when their friends and/or sycophants would rather shield them from the ugly truths than to tell them point-blank that they have a serious PR issue (on top of their policy issues). E.g. Consider the way my friend defended her friend, a PAP minister who was criticized for his poor PR skills.
http://winkingdoll.blogspot.ca/2013/04/brunch-with-former-bureaucrats.html
IMHO, I doubt that PAP will improve in its PR skills -- going by their modus operandi. It seems that one old man's motto of "if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac" continues to run.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
Btw, if one reads the extended context of the "knuckle-dusters" quote, one will find it very instructive of the kind of society that someone envisioned/moulded Singapore to be.
Cheers, WD.
The thing is WD, the PAP didn't need any form of PR skills in the past, before the age of the internet as Singaporeans back then were less demanding and less able to think for themselves - my blogging like that, exchanging my views so frankly with so many Singaporeans in such a short space of time (my blog traffic went through the roof in the last 36 hours over this issue) would not have been possible without internet technology as it is and the PAP cannot censor all of the internet. Clearly, they have not understood how social media works and this will ultimately be their downfall.
Delete"The guy is not a politician - he is a cartoonist, a comedian blessed with great drawing skills."
ReplyDeleteErr, do you know that his strips are done with a software tool called Bitstrip ? I don't think he draws his strips by hand.
OK, thanks for your comment - you know, I have just spent 30 minutes playing around on Bitstrip and it is fascinating. I am tempted to even create my own comics now but whilst it does take away some element of drawing (by hand, that is), I spent 30 minutes just creating an avatar and the amount of work that must go into a 6 frame comic must be at least several hours! Even if he does use a programme like that, I still give him credit for creating a set of characters and weaving a narrative that has been extremely successful.
DeleteI think this is not so much about PR, it is about instilling fear. They can and will expend public resources to track people like Leslie Chew. And, they are petty.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, everything is about PR - even using this 'instilling fear' method is a kind of PR, albeit not one that you may not traditionally consider PR. Think of how many marketing campaigns appeal to your sense of fear in order to make you think, "if I don't buy this product, I will not be beautiful, my children will get sick, I will lose money etc." This kind of scaremongering sells millions of dollars worth of products & services a year - because they know fear is a great motivator, it is an easy button to press.
DeleteSo my friend, fear & PR go hand in hand. PR can press several buttons on the subject to create the desired response. However, the question you have to ask yourself at the end of the day is this: will this episode win them or lose them votes at the next election? Will they scare people into voting PAP again? Or will they disgust citizens who will turn en masse to the opposition?
I think in this case there are two effects. The first is, as you have described, the direct PR effect. It can immediately turn some people away by making them disgusted. These are the borderline voters.
DeleteThe second effect is a higher-level one that affects the "other" side's PR ability, i.e., using fear to stop others from speaking. By damaging the PR ability of the other side, the rate of vote erosion on the not-so-borderline voters might slow down enough to offset the immediate lost through the first level effect. In terms of the commercial marketing analogy, this is like hiring thugs to beat up a competitor's marketing staff en-route to work so that their whole marketing department dare not go to work for some time.
Having said that, it is probably quite hard to predict which effect will dominate. My hunch is their move will backfire.
Good analysis - I think we can measure the public reaction via the spike in my traffic in the last few days. I received about 30% of the traffic to my blog this month within 36 hours of this article, so clearly, the public is reacting to it - but we'll have to wait and see what the long term effect will be and this depends on the kind of sentence Leslie Chew gets. Imagine if they jail him for 2 years ... how will the public react?
DeleteAnd there's the May Day protest as well. Wow.