Pseudonyms and anonymous blogging- Are nom de guerre still needed in Singapore?

Hi Friends,

Introduction

What do Vladimir Il'ich Ulyanov, Yosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, Saloth Sar and Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, have in common with Samuel Clemens and Charles Dodgson?

They are all famous personalities in history and they all had pseudonyms.

Their nom de guerre (French for “war name”) or nom de plume ( pen name) were Lenin,Stalin,Pol Pot, Carlos the Jackal, Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll respectively. (see wikipedia on Pseudonyms here)

Singapore also had her Chin Peng (real name Ong Boon Hua) and The “Plen”-ipotentiary (Fang Chuang Pi) who were leaders of the Malayan Communist Party. (See here and here on the Plen)

In the debate about anonymous blogging and use of pseudonyms, it is useful to remember the historical context in which pseudonyms were used.

History context on Pseudonym Usage

In times of war( especially guerilla warfare), the need was obvious. In other times, it was mainly tradition eg Monarchies (King George VI was born Albert Frederick Arthur George); Pope Benedict XVI was born Joseph Alois Ratzinger; Actresses including pornstars (Linda Lovelace (Deep Throat), the most famous porn star of all time, was born Linda Boreman); online world (use of handle,avatar or nicknames common eg Lucky Tan).

Perhaps of more relevance to the discourse about Singapore’s politics is the fact that from the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, it was established practice for political articles to be signed with pseudonyms. For example the pen name Publius, was used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in writing The Federalist Papers. And in Britain, political writer Junius (who was never identified) used his shroud of anonymity to great effect to expose corrupt. See wikipedia on Junius here

Junius’ letters were “considered by some to be invective though close inspection of his writings reveals a principled man centuries ahead of his time, exposing blatant corruption by the only means available (anonymity) in a country struggling with the idea of freedom of speech”.

I had written a post on my blog on this (here) and it was also published in the ST forum page.

Despite what I have written above ( esply about wartime use of pseudonyms), I still sincerely believe that in Singapore’s present political context, it would be more useful and more credible to use real names.

Lucky Tan's contention that “for many bloggers, our anonymity is to keep our friends, parents and relatives from worrying and not for any other purpose” is quite lame. (see here). I still read Lucky's satire and I like them as they are like a breath of fresh air.

Unless we are no better than Burma and N. Korea...

If you really believe that in present day Singapore ( let us not dwell in the past), to write or utter any alternative opinion would cause one to be jailed ala Burma and North Korea, that government agencies (eg ISD) are at this moment trailing your movements and tapping your communications and that we live in a make-believe Matrix world that would eventually reveal its true nature just before the ending credits rolled, then it is understandable to resort to anonymity.

But if you are not so paranoid ( or delusional), you should be like Gerald Giam, Alex Au and myself who feel that despite Singapore’s political scene being less than perfect ( to put it mildly), the establishment can and should can be engaged in a “real-world” basis.

We must have testicular fortitude

I still am convinced that one must have the testicular fortitude (balls) to stand up for what one believes in. We cannot help what our friends and relatives think about our political stands, but to live our lives cowering behind false camouflages is just plain “ sad”. And bloggers who only make anonymous comments which are nothing more than unconstructive barbs and diatribes are childish ( and should be ignored just as we ignore children’s antics).

Many people I know – who when they found out about my blog or my forum letters, were genuinely supportive. They would pull me aside in hospital corridors or even sms/phone me to say that they agreed with what I said or that they wished they had the courage to tell the government that all is not well on the ground and that it is time for substantial changes in our political governance.

No persecutions (so far)...

My work as a doctor has not been affected and patients (even from government-linked agencies) continue to see me. My interactions with government agencies (eg traffic police/telecoms/media etc) have not changed and my relatives’ chances of getting scholarships or employment are not diminished in any way just because of my outspoken views. I continue to be active in the medical circle ( election to councils and committees etc).

Fear as an excuse?

I used to say (and I say again) that “fear of the government” is very often used as an excuse to be inactive and apathetic. Period.

I may not agree with all the views of Dr. Chee Soon Juan nor am I completely comfortable about the notion of “gay marriage”, but I respect CSJ for his dogged determination and Alex Au for being open about his sexuality and using legal avenues to try to effect change.

Would we be better if dissenting views are "closeted"?

In a thought experiment- would Alex be as effective in changing government and public mindset about gay rights if he had remained “closeted” ( no disrespect intended)? On the same vein, if all non-establishment personalities ( eg Catherine Lim/Tan Kin Lian/Leong Sze Hian/Siew Kum Hong etc) had remained anonymous, would Singapore be better off? No, we could then just be conceding media space to the government’s propaganda machinery ( we know who these are) who already have near-monopoly of MSM.

On critical mass

I may be naïve, but I believe if there is a critical mass of people who dare publicly be associated with non-establishment views, the people and in turn the government would have no choice but to take notice and try to change in order not to lose support and votes.

Government's failure in allaying fear

From the palpable fear prevalent in Singapore, it is obvious that the government has been less than effective in convincing Singaporeans that it is interested in an “open and inclusive Singapore” as alluded to in PM Lee’s speech when he first took the oath as Singapore’s third Prime Minister in August 2004.

PM Lee said (click here for whole speech),
“We will continue to expand the space which Singaporeans have to live, to laugh, to grow and to be ourselves. Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand our problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces”…” Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore.”

Notwithstanding this, I will continue to engage openly and I hope you will too.

Friends, my blogname (nofearsingapore) is not ironic.

I believe in it and I put my money where my mouth is.

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Test posting

I am having great difficulty with my blogger.
I hope this posting via my email works as if it doesn't, then it means that I may need to migrate to another platform other than blogger.
Blogger is extremely unstable and their help pages unhelpful.

Here's keeping my fingers crossed.

Dr.Huang