MDA, brainless and spineless?

My father and I are soccer fans, but we had not been subscribing to any cable football channel for many years now, because I refuse to pay the exorbitant and endlessly increasing subscription fees. But I do not blame StarHub. I blame MDA.

Why? I dont have the exact figures, but going by the quoted fees for the exclusive rights to the Barclays Premier League (BPL), divided by the subscription fees, by my guesstimate, is a very large proportion of StarHub's total subscribers. In other words, to secure the exclusive rights, StarHub is bidding near breakeven level. In other other words, dear football subscribers, even though it is costly, StarHub is really not making much money from you. In all likelihood, non-BPL football viewers are probably subsidising the BPL football viewers.

Anybody who knows some introductory economics would know that in a state of perfect free competition, the profit goes to zero. The stakes of cable tv in Singapore is higher. Most StarHub cableTV subscribers are in it for BPL and BPL alone. If Singtel beats StarHub to the BPL exclusive rights, StarHub CableTV will cease to be a viable entity with collateral damage to StarHub's commoditized businesses in mobile, IDD and broadband business. Therefore, Singtel will always try to force StarHub to bid at their threshold of pain, but let StarHub win it. That way, StarHub will continue to operate a profitless business that will continue to drain StarHub's ability to expand aggressively in other businesses. Notice you still cannot buy the iPhone from StarHub, despite suggestions that it would be available, late LAST year. And soccer fans will direct all their hate at StarHub. Wonderful win, win situation for Singtel.

It was not too long ago when soccer fans can watch free, live matches on free-to-air channel, SportsCity. But now that the football clubs are demanding more TV money, we know that this advertising supported will not work any more. But a large part of the subscription costs now is due to the bidding war between Singtel and StarHub, and it has been going on for years. What has MDA done all these years, other than sitting on their hands? Nothing much, except endless talk about how MDA is observing the situation. Oh, and finally, they "commissioned" some consultants to study the "competition issues". What kind of regulator needs third party "consultants" to tell them what they should do? They ought to be the experts and they should take the lead, instead of passing the buck to the consultants to whom blame can be shifted if things go wrong. If they want to act like taichi bureaucrats, then they should be paid like taichi bureaucrats, instead of acting and benefiting like they are some private sector employees with nice titles like CEO and matching perks.

So enough panning, here's my constructive suggestions:

1) Ban Singtel from bidding for football rights. Singtel wants to build their mioTV business, and is able to use their sheer size to directly and indirectly subsidize their BPL bid. Barring them will take the heat off StarHub and give them room to negotiate.

2) Stop pretending StarHub and Singtel are not Singapore state owned enterprises. Pretending to compete when it comes to overseas contracts only hurts the Singapore market. MDA as the regulator should knock their bloody heads together if they cannot learn to work together for the interests of Singapore. The very least MDA could do, is to make the telcos pledge not to bid for exclusive rights. Better yet, let ESPN win the rights and run the shows, and work out some deal beneficial for mutual survival, eg Manchester United exclusivity for StarHub and Liverpool exclusivity for Singtel, except when the two teams play against each other.

3) Give up trying to nurture the S-League. mioTV dropped in my lap and I had access to Italian Serie A for free. The match I skimmed through, was the one that featured David Beckham. Forcing people to watch S League, which is not even close to being second best by entertainment values, by intentionally making BPL watching expensive will not work.

MDA studying competition issues

I THANK Mr Tan Chak Lim for his letter on Monday, ''Managed' football telecast rights benefit consumers, content providers', and Mr Lim Phei Kiat for his letter on Wednesday, 'Subscribers paying too much for pay TV football'.

We note football viewers' concerns on higher subscription costs and having to subscribe to both SingTel and StarHub for different sports content.

Thus, late last year, we commissioned a study on competition issues in convergent media and telecoms markets. Both SingTel and StarHub were among the industry players interviewed by the appointed consultants in the course of the study.

The issues are multifaceted and include commercial agreements for broadcast of sports events, foreign content owners' rights, and Singapore's obligations to abide by international conventions that protect such rights.

We are pleased to update that this study is ongoing and various options are being explored. The Media Development Authority seeks the patience and understanding of TV viewers, and will update the public on the results of the review at an appropriate juncture.

Eileen Ang (Ms)
Head (Competition & Market Access)
Development Policy
Media Development Authority

Good riddance, Siew Kum Hong

This morning brings the good news of Siew Kum Hong and his gay faction rejected from the parliament, and partially restores my confidence with the government.

As a Catholic in Singapore, I cannot say I have much love for the government. The Marxist Conspiracy/Operation Spectrum was a malicious and dishonest smear, and as far as I am concerned, directed at Catholics in Singapore. As the government never found the courage to set the record straight, there is not much reconciliation to speak of. For a Christian to speak up politically, one has to hide his/her Christian identity, or will risk having all sorts of accusations of thought crimes hurled at he or she.

As much as I disagree with Thio Li Ann, I feel she has a right to speak up without being accused of the crime of being a Christian. Somehow, the self-styled liberals in Singapore do not have any concept of this.

In stark contrast, the gays in Singapore, often comparing themselves with Jews under Hitler, suffer far less constrains. When was the last time anybody got in trouble with the law for peacefully advocating gay rights?

With this AWARE scandal, I have learnt that the liberals in Singapore, unfortunately, had been tainted by PAP rule. They may talk about human rights and freedom of speech, but are not the least interested in defending the rights of people who disagree with them. They have chosen to fight the devil by being a bigger devil.

While the AWARE takeover was orchestrated by just a few non-representative Christians, the entire of Christianity was attacked. While some of these are due to atheists taking advantage of the situation, the "liberals" seem to revel in the attention, and sent the lynching mob to organize boycotts of the employers of Josie, charging their opponents with frivolous thought crimes and intruding on their privacy, and acting like hooligans at the AWARE EGM.

If these "liberals" are put in government, I have little doubt that they will be even more ruthless in persecuting dissenters than the current government.

From what I have seen of Singaporebloodypore, TheOnlineCitizen, TheWayangParty and Singapore Democrats, I find it hard to feel safe to vote for the Worker's Party or SDP. Unless these parties clearly show that they are not hijacked by anti-christian liberals, I fear I may find myself forced into crossing the PAP box in the next election.

Open letter to the Prime Minister from an anonymous Singaporean:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing as a concerned Singaporean and a mother to request official scrutiny into press reporting of the AWARE saga.

I'll share my first-person observations at the AWARE EGM in relation to Straits Times coverage of the event.

1) My 18-year-old daughter and I went to the AWARE EGM on Saturday, 2 May 2009, to observe the proceedings of a civil organisation but the progression of events left us with much disquiet.

a) We noticed a large contingent of men upon entering the meeting hall as we were directed to the "overflow area" in Hall 403 where we sat in the front portion (we were among the last 200 to enter at 2.50pm after queuing from 1.30pm). The men formed about a quarter of the meeting, occupying seats in the back half of the 'overflow'. My daughter observed that this was a meeting for a women's association and was surprised at the substantial male turn-out. I reserved my comments.

b)We were accosted by ear-deafening 'boos' and jeers as we passed the section, but realised that they were not directed at us as much as at the speaker onstage. We were quite unable to hear the opening speech being given by Ms Josie Lau, then President of AWARE, as the heckling went on unabated in tenor and base. In fact, the aggression was so vehement that my daughter was in tears from the sense of intimidation and oppression, even though the hooliganism was not directed at us.

c) It could be clearly observed that a number of men in the front of the section were attired in white 'We are AWARE' t-shirts or pink tops.

d)There were also more than 20 foreign men and women in their midst.

e)Then as the meeting progressed, more than half of them moved to stand with and around the 'old guard' of AWARE, and at the floor speakers' area, continuing to disrupt the proceedings despite calls for order.

e) What really flabbergasted us was that soon some of these associate members with no voting rights took the stand to proudly declare their homosexual status to loud applause from the 'old guard' camp as they spoke in support of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme. In fact, it was impossible for ordinary members like me to try to ask any questions on the floor (as I tried to queue up to do so) as the 'old guard' with half of them men effectively 'barricading' the area and monopolising the microphones in a raucous commotion.

We came away from the whole event rather disillusioned by AWARE and what it professed to stand for. They may still be helping women, marginalised or needy, but they are also involved in the political agenda of some minority groups, even with covert foreign interference.

2) I'm also surprised and deeply troubled that the reporting in The Straits Times has not been honest in presenting the full picture to the public, especially concerned parents following the AWARE saga. There was a concerted effort by both the press and TV coverage not to mention the significant presence of the homosexual community. If I had not been there, I would never have known the truth.

a) In fact, I witnessed the main reporter responsible for blowing up the whole AWARE story (Wong Kim Hoh) hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity at the EGM.

b) Some members of the press and TV were candidly jubilant as they celebrated the passing of the 'no confidence' vote by punching their fists in the air and hugging the 'old guard' they were standing with.

c) In the sweep of fervent support, the constitutional amendments were also made to allow men and foreign

women full voting rights (in a local women's association that makes the CEDAW report on the state of women in Singapore). In the perspective that such an amendment was thrown out in the previous AGM, the motives may be called into question. The press made no mention of this important development.

I question the cover-up in the press.

In review of newspaper coverage of AWARE developments, I'm also beginning to think that press focus on the sensitive issue of religious involvement was but a calculated red herring thrown out to manipulate public sentiments.

Sir, I am pleading for the authorities to look into this matter as I am becoming increasingly alarmed that minority groups with a political agenda may not have just reached its grasp into a vulnerable women's group, and through it attempt to distort our children's views on sexuality, but has actually infiltrated the press to block out news and prevent the public from accessing the truth. I actually feel frightened that the press in Singapore can attempt to shape my views as it wishes by misinformation or partial information.

from journalism.sg

Who is neutral, really?

Over the weekend, there is more coverage on the AWARE gay advocacy scandal, and Dana Lam, interviewed in Zaobao, the Singapore Chinese daily is totally unapologetic about AWARE's gay advocacy in the MOE CSE. Even Marthia Lee backpedalled a little by saying the CSE instructor manual had been a little careless in the wording, while Dana Lam continues to rubbish the whole idea that there was any tinge of gay advocacy in AWARE's CSE.

And this Channel News Asia "journalist" Pearl Forss, who was seen cheering emotionally at the announcement of the voting outcome of the AWARE EGM, inserts another pro-AWARE old guard mantra into her "report" of the MOE press release regarding sex education, that,

"Homosexuality is seen as neutral in the AWARE CSE."

It is clearly her insertion because no other reports I have seen has that statement. She is clearly showing her pro-old guard bias by repeating that mantra.

And from what source did they get that mantra from? Apparently, they think they have collected a "slip" from their favourite smearing target, Thio Su Mien.

The problem is

1) Thio Su Mien is an extremist and does not represent me. I'm sure a lot of parents angry about the AWARE CSE would agree with me.

2) Pro-gay extremists tries to draw parallels between them and the civil rights movements in the US or the Jewish Holocaust, as though we segregate our beaches according to sexual orientation or round up gays in concentration camps, which cannot be further from the truth. Singapore has been very tolerant of gays. But to them anything short of gay pride parades and anal sex clinics in secondary schools would probably be seen as "neutral".

3) Like the pro-gay extremists, people like Thio Su Mien believes there is no middle ground. To her, being neutral about homosexuality is probably enough reason to burn in hell.
Getting Thio Su Mein to say the AWARE CSE is neutral means nothing.

Anybody who read the instructor's manual for AWARE CSE knows that it is far from being neutral with words like "Homosexuality is perfectly normal".

If the AWARE CSE is seen as neutral, there will not be any controversy.

AWARE as unrepentant and extreme as it is, should be permanently banned from access to all public services, not just MOE.

To fight the gay activists is to be anti-science?

One of the favourite argument of the gay activists is to smear dissenters to be anti-science, flat earth, creationist types. This is obviously an underhand bullying tactic.

Science does not have any conclusive opinion on homosexuality. And even if it does, one can never rule out that it merely a fad that may not stand the test of time.

Take lobotomy fro example. It used to be an accepted scientific method for treating schizophrenia in the early 20th century. Even the sister of John F Kennedy underwent the treatment. Let me describe one specific type of lobotomy: "transorbital lobotomy"

it involved lifting the upper eyelid and placing the point of a thin surgical instrument (often called an orbitoclast or leucotome, although quite different from the wire loop leucotome described above) under the eyelid and against the top of the eyesocket. A hammer or mallet was then used to drive the leucotome through the thin layer of bone and into the brain. The leucotome was then moved from side to side, toto sever the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobes to the thalamus.

Does it make your stomach turn? I like to think I am a man of science, but even when science is cock sure, it can be dead wrong. If a Christian were to speak up against lobotomy in that era, one can be rest assured that he or she will be attacked as an anti-science flat earth creationist. If you believe in God, then you should trust God to have placed the spark of enlightenment in your heart, in your conscience. Using the Bible to fight Science is a losing proposition. God gave us a big brain for a reason, and it is intellectual laziness to revert to the Bible when we fight what we know in how heart, is barbarism.

The Gay Strawman

Gay advocates, smarting from their defeat after their gay agenda was exposed by the scandal that is the AWARE CSE, are resorting to strawman arguments to defend their lies.

It goes along this: People who oppose the supposedly neutral AWARE CSE are influenced by their American Christian Right. The American Christian Right advocates homophobia and abstinence-only sex education, faith based conversion of gays etc etc, which are faulty in one way or another. Ergo, parents who complain about the AWARE CSE must also have the same faulty reasonings, as well as imposing religious fundamentalists views on the secular society.

First of all, it will take quite a tool to think the AWARE CSE is neutral. Why was the instructor's manual confidential? If the manuals were shown to the principals, do you think any principal will greenlight their gay agenda?

Second, of the thousands who complained, there are plenty of Buddhists, Muslims and free thinkers. To assume all these Singaporean parents who would otherwise be slimed as apathetic to be influenced by American Christian Right gives a little too much credit to the American Christian Right.

Remember, Thio/Josie could barely find any support outside their church, or the ex-new team wouldnt have looked half as silly.

Third, I have yet to see any group emerge to collectively represent the viewpoints of any significant group of the outraged parents. Only MOE knows exactly the composition of each parental complain. To assume the parents pursue the exact same agenda like that pursued by the Christian Right, for eg abstinence only education or hostility to gays is simply disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

As usual, it is just part and parcel of the dirty tricks the gay activists use to censor dissent.

Gay movement now resorting to terrorist methods

An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Church of Our Saviour office at Margaret Drive, in Queenstown, last Thursday.

The envelope was addressed to the senior pastor of the Anglican church but it was not known if the name of the pastor, Reverend Derek Hong, was indicated.