Further Lessons from an economic story

 

In my previous article, I wrote about lessons from an economic story. I told the story (an imaginary one) about a taxi driver. He works hard and has many skills. Yet he remains relatively poor by earning smaller income.

Notice that he is forced to be a master of all because of an imposed closed system. He is kept there and forced to be self sufficient. He is imprisoned as a result of a system that regulates social action. Call it the governing system

His less talented neighbour, less resourceful and lazy, earns a better living. He earns a higher income. He is the fictionalised government officer in our story.

The taxi driver and the government officer are all economic actors within the governing system.

The system has kept the taxi driver in his place while the same system is controlled by the government officer who ensures the system is kept that way. By now readers would have come around to say, the government officer in the story is not necessarily any government officer in the conventional sense, but one who represents those who control the levers of power of government.

The responses to the story affirm several points which I want to put across.

Sometime ago, I wrote that what we are actually looking for is equality in opportunities. In this story equality in opportunities would be in the form of opening up the system. Many commentators objected to the taxi driver earning the same as the government officer (assumed to be a degree holder).

Ah ha, we actually don't want equality in outcome after all. In some of my previous articles, when I offered the opinion, that we want equality in opportunities not equality in outcomes, that proposition was trashed.

By the many comments to this story about Lessons, we know, we actually want equality in opportunities and not equality in outcomes. Outcomes commensurate with education and effort.

There were several heart-warming stories about real life taxi drivers making it good. Their station in life became better when taxi drivers of this world; refuse to accept any current station in life as being inherently determined.

Hence that would demolish the idea that any one particular group has been able to pull ahead from another, because they have been imbibed with the genetic code to succeed. That would also demolish the idea that the Malay is less successful because he is not imbued with the genetic experience.

For instance, the Chinese who came to Malaya is said to have succeeded because they have had thousand of years, value indoctrination. As I recall the Chinese who came to Malaya sometime ago were the marginalised themselves and were from the lower strata. We can almost say, they were the dregs in Chinese society. That would make it untenable to accept the proposition that they were predisposed to success because they have had secret codes of success embedded in their genes.

The taxi driver and the Chinese singkeh ( sengkek in Pahang) were able to pull themselves ahead because of acquired habits and values offered as response to external challenges.

The several times retrenched taxi driver learnt the value of harder work, determination, not giving up, wanting a better life, thrift and saving to pull ahead.

The taxi driver and the immigrant Chinese represent what? They represent different actors affected by an identical general cause. They reacted in their own ways to the forces set in motion by an identical cause.

As Arnold Toynbee says- a society is confronted in the course of its life by a succession of problems which each member has to solve itself as best as it may. The presentation of each problem is a challenge to undergo an ordeal and through this series of ordeals the members of the society progressively differentiate themselves from one another.

I did not expect that short story to degenerate into an us- versus- them arguments. This is not about Malay and Chinese economic positions. I wanted to establish the principles by which the taxi driver can progress. He pulls ahead by leveraging on acquired habits and values and refused to be imprisoned by the system. His acquisition of the pro progress habits and values (gleaned from real life examples) is the response to the challenge set in motion by an external cause.

The government officer remains that way, because within the upper loop of his section of society, everyone who is a member of his fraternity is allowed to trade. The ones refused entry and disallowed to trade are the taxi drivers of the world.

Tweet

Read more...

Lessons from an economic story

The principles that can be extracted from the following economic story are as follows:-

1. Don't punish the real workers of the economy by closing the doors of opportunities
   
2. Allow then to trade/participate in a more opened up economy
   
3. Dismantle the institutional prison that preserves the monopoly by a small minority
   
4. A new regime that governs relations among economic agents must be installed replacing the old one that perpetrates a big lie that the real workers are in need of a policy administered by the minority.
   

 

One taxi driver told a friend who told me. He wakes before dawn, performs his subuh prayers and sets off to do his job as a cab driver until he comes back at around midnight. This cab driver works like a water buffalo.

The cab driver has no formal education but is spectacularly intelligent and resourceful. Beyond his work as a cab driver, he could butcher a goat or cow according to Islamic rights, perform the function of imam at the local surau, , fix a roof, plaster walls, fix a host of household appliances. Yet his total lifetime earnings were less than even a very lazy, untalented government officer might earn in a single year who lives in the more affluent part of his neighborhood. He is consigned to the kawasan rumah kos rendah.

 The cab driver asked my friend: tell me brother, can I be called lazy? These politicians and unquestioning buffoons say I am lazy. I work from dawn past midnight; my income is nowhere near those who say my kind is lazy. The income divide is widening and it's not because we don't work. Maybe, it's because, opportunities are closed for us. The powers that be don't allow us to trade.

And that prompted this question:

Why does a spectacularly hardworking, intelligent and resourceful person such as this cab driver earn spectacularly less than a lazy untalented officer?

The one sentence answer: Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty or lower earnings.

My son is a software engineer who works for a contractor company to BBC in Liverpool. He can draw all those game figures, writes programs into them, design websites and a host of other computer software, products. But he has learnt not to divulge everything. Reason? He may end up doing all the work in the office while the Caucasians go pub crawling. So it is economically prudent for him, to conceal all his talents.

The longer answer is that the lazy, not resourceful officer of average intelligence has no incentive to learn how to fix a broken alarm clock or butcher a goat or thatch a roof. For this kind of fellow, these elegant but time-intensive skills have a reward that is far below the cost in foregoing other activities.

The other guy is only lazy because he can afford to be. But put that guy on a desert island by himself and he will quickly resemble Robinson Crusoe, a man with no real skills suddenly forced to acquire some and with a very intense incentive to do so.

But that is only part of the story. Why can one guy afford so much leisure? The answer is that he has more people to trade with, people who bring more capital and skills to the table.

I know nothing about butchering goats the correct way, mend roofs, and repair vacuum cleaners. I know a reasonable amount about economics, a skill that is virtually worthless in practice. And yet I live a comparatively better life that the Alam Flora cleaner l. I live a better life than my great-grandfather who may have been smarter and may have been able to do many things I can never imagine doing.

The fundamental reason that is so is because I benefit from the division of labor. By specializing in economics, I am able to leverage the skills of other people who are specializing in their chosen fields. It is their specializing, and the opportunity to trade with them, that makes it rational and gloriously pleasant to specialize in economics which is a dry subject and called the dismal science.

There may be lessons here- I am telling through a principle of economics. Specialization allows trade (read opening up and competition).Close the avenues for opportunities (trade), the cab drivers of this world can work like a cow, but still receive lower relative income. Those people controlling the avenues of opportunity close the doors and window of access, the cab driver despite his diligence, talent and resourcefulness remains economically lower on the ladder.

Now a general poser: could it be that the majority of Malays have not been able to uplift themselves because they have been led to believe by a big lie, that a policy that was suppose to liberate them, actually enriches a few? That such a policy has actually resulted in doors of opportunities being closed for them? .

Tweet

Read more...

On Government, Policies and Free Men

I wanted to write something on policies to clear the Labour market. I am afraid, that will have to wait. One of the demands by the picketing unemployed was for jobs to be created. My question is who create jobs? Not the government. Government jobs are few and far in between.

Private sector creates jobs. How many they do, depends on the economy. The economy and the desired responses of the private sector depend on government policies- affecting the two. If the government blunders, then the signals to businessmen aren't that promising, they don't invest and they don't create jobs. Let us term the set of signals sent- policies.

So, what I wanted to do initially slowly evolve into an inquiry into the efficacy of government policies, in general. We are familiar with the observation- garbage in, garbage out. It is plausible, that what we are experiencing now is the result of flawed government policies.

We have problems in the labour market now. There are not enough jobs and that is closely linked to the state of the economy as a whole. We have people being retrenched and cannot find jobs because of mismatch between skills and wage- paying jobs. And I am not even sure, whether our policy makers take note of the trade-off between unemployment and income disparities? Lower unemployment actually results in widening income disparities? All these may be traced to flawed government policies ranging from misplaced educational policies and so forth.

As a further example, consider the NEP- a specific set of policies aimed at correcting economic injustices. It managed to achieve limited success. For some that is sufficient to crow about and offered as reason, we need more.

I hear the claim that is repeated often- see?, even with the limited success, look at how it has improved the lot of the Malays? That would be a proof, that we need that kind of policy to ensure continued success. And the even more open challenge retort- if we don't have kind-of NEP policy, with what shall we replace it? God knows we need one. We always need protection. That has been in our blood. For generations.

Except that when we measure that 'limited success' against the better successes of the social group by which we measured ours in the first place, then, the inevitable question emerges. How is it possible for one group with limited or no protection been able to pull ahead while the group agitating for correction with unlimited assistance can only managed limited success but still far from target?

Is it the government who is at fault or is there something wrong within us?

Let's get back to the issue of policies and its desired effects. The idea looks simple. There is a symbiotic relation between the government and private sector. Let us construct a model of an economy. Assume there are two parties- the government and non government.

Government and Non Government are united by a common purpose- that of creating the greatest good for society. Government makes policies, create the prospering and enabling environment, upholds the law, protects it citizens. Non government in response produce goods and services, consume them, pay taxes, and obey laws.

By now, it's already accepted, it makes sense for both parties to work together for the common good. The common good is the overriding principle. This point needs to be driven home, because in the course of achieving the common good, there may be disagreements which in the end must be subservient to the overriding principle.

Now, if both are desirous in achieving the best common good, it would be in the best interests of both parties to work on the correct set of inducements. The government because it has a monopoly over coercive instruments of power and monopoly over laws that ensure correct social behaviour are anxious to send the correct signals to elicit desired responses from non government. The non government sector has a monopoly over non-compliance; i.e. it can refuse outright to accept the signals and therefore with it, to withhold the desired response.

To make things simpler we assume the following. The government has an absolute monopoly over policies (an embodiment of all type of powers) while Non-Government has absolute monopoly over appropriate behaviour. Non government wants right policies while Government wants right behaviour.

Hence, it boils down to the issue of the right way to send signals of inducement to get as reward, the right social behaviour.

 

From generalisations, we move on to specifics.

Since 1970, we have implemented the NEP to restructure the economy. We desire to give Malays a greater share in the economy- owning at least 30% of the wealth in this country. We take equity in companies as signifying the extent of wealth holding. It's not entirely satisfactory, but it is close enough.

What have been the results so far? The Malay equity in this country's wealth is probably only near the 20% mark- short of the 30% target set out by the NEP. Failure to achieve this puts down the government. Some attributed the failure to faulty implementation. That attribution is not wrong but not entirely correct either.

It would be wrong however, if one reads from the blame assigned to the government, a suggestion that the entire responsibility lies with the government. Bur surely, the government MUST be wrong, you protest.

We don't like big intrusive government yet we are too quick to assign absolute blame onto them, if something goes wrong. It would then make for a stronger case to install a benevolent despot of a government. The government can say, give us absolute power. Trust in us and we will carry out the objectives.

That proposal is problematical. It would then run counter to the ideals of free men and ideas about democracy. When things do not materialise as we wish them to be, it is easy to place fault on the government. Doing that means you are acknowledging the omniscience of the government. That would further imply that government is the patron, the citizen its charges. That would be a very monumental underestimation of the people's resolve and intelligence to shape their own destiny.

It is we who compose this country; we create a government that facilitates our numerous social transactions. We have not created something that is over us. That being the case, my argument is: faulting the government entirely is not entirely right not because they do not deserve our censure and anger, but because to do so, would underestimate our own free will.

It follows then; the failure of the objectives of the NEP may also be attributed to the failure by the Malays to reciprocate with the right responses. Perhaps we too should be sharing the blame for the failure, by looking at our cultural practices and so forth.

Since the government, the implementers and the intended recipients are Malays, there are probably more reasons in their cultural make up, that can better explain the limited success of the NEP.

Tweet

Read more...

The uses and misuses of Anonymity

In France there are actually laws against the use of anonymity. All messages on the Internet must be identified with the real identity of their source.

Prosecutors and judges often object to the use of all kinds of anonymity. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia was reported to say "The very purpose of anonymity is to facilitate wrong by eliminating accountability"

Anonymity on rare occasions may have a place in protecting whistleblowers or honest journalistic sources fearful of retaliation. Fear of retaliation is suggestive of a repressive regime. Where Malaysia is concern, I would be hard-pressed to agree that it is repressive when it comes to freedom over the internet. To me that would make justification for the use of anonymity as a shield from retaliation, fallacious.

So, we must look elsewhere for the real justification in the use of anonymity.

Our misapprehension about anonymity arises because:-

1. lately it is being misused in a variety of different contexts to destroy people and institutions
   
2. It is used as a way for authors of all sorts to avoid responsibility for what they write.
   

As we have already acknowledged, there are uses of anonymity as well as misuses. Journalists are aware of the uses and misuses of anonymity. They continuously weigh the pros and cons of using it. That is, we are assuming they are conscientious.

What regulates and restraints them? Are there laws, regulations and ground rules? There are none, because the ground rules which someone suggests are non existent. There are no ground rules as such but what we have is adoption of personal ethical standards. Only we, the user know for what purpose we use that concept of anonymity. Do we use it to deceive people so that we can get information and then publish that information? Do we use anonymity to destroy others and institutions. Or do we use anonymity as a means to avoid unaccountability? Do we use them just to be abusive as some bloggers do believing it's their god given rights and they, are god's gifts to the world?.

Hence, we have the real possibility of everyday situations where authors and journalists fudge on their own ethical standards as they race to uncover the burning issues of the day such as the supposed ethical lapses of their government officials. It is also a real possibility that they also cheat on their own ethical standards by fabricating issues they themselves elevate to artificial importance.

So when we have situations where "we accuse" authors like the Voices and Bigdogs of this world, go out of their way to avoid using their own names , there is often a good suspicion why: They apparently don't look forward to questions about why and how exactly they wrote what they wrote. Put it simply: they just publish and be dammed.

What is it that confers on them this sense of invincibility? It is this concept known as anonymity that gives them free rein as judge and jury, exempt from cross-examination. This "trust me" practice goes against the very grain of the tradition of natural justice in allowing the aggrieved the right to face his accusers.

Rashid Yuosf is an unfortunate recent example in our country. He has been denied the probable chance of securing a post as press secretary to the DPM which is the second highest office in this country, simply because anonymous authors have acted as judge and jury condemning and defacing him while denying him the right to face his accusers. How could he, if he could not place who they are?

What if all those aspersions cast on Rashid proved to be false and indefensible? I sincerely hope the result of this abuse of anonymity is not more lasting damage to the authors than any temporary discomfort of fending off cross-examination. The Bigdogs and Voices can certainly become disgraced storytellers. (That's a downgrade- from frontline bloggers to just bedtime storytellers).

The loosely constituted federation of avant garde bloggers under the leadership of the master blogger will lose whatever credibility it has because it had sanctioned the publication of false stories by authors belonging to his camp. All the result of this unquestioning and blind attachment to this thing called anonymity.

It will go down that way, if the confederation of these hip authors under his wings continues to misuse and abuse the concept of anonymity.

But I suppose this aspect of ethics is not relevant to them and they will do a Rhett Butler- we don't give a damn to this kind of reasoning.

If the stories concerning Rashid Yusof prove to be a falsification prompted by hidden agenda players in Putrajaya, then the Bigdogs and Voices will sound goofier each time they offer their views and the credibility of their anonymously written 'security threats' and all that mumbo jumbo, shakier and shakier.

Our conclusion is this. Anonymity is a vicious but seductive Siren that lures its heedless listeners to shipwreck on the shoals.

 

Tweet

Read more...

White Feather.

White Feather- you know who their leader is.

I have decided to pull down my posting titled Under Caption contest. The significance of pulling it down is a matter, privy between Voice and I. I hope he will convey the same message to Bigdog. I want to assure readers; Voice and I are friends and are desirous to move forward.

I have responded to the many acrimonious and venomous personal attacks with 3 articles. If I may say so, the subject matter is of course beyond the comprehension of many ex-stringers who think they can dominate the blogosphere and establish their own ground rules. Sorry folks, those halcyon days where you can flood readers minds with your post -form 5 level understanding are over.

I will continue exposing the hacks and the charlatans who hide behind the most undemocratic tool of all- anonymity. I however recognise the need to use this cloak of anonymity in certain situations. The circumstances in which it is permissible, I have already touched in my 3 articles. I may not agree to it, but it is the author's personal choice. In that respect I can accept the arguments put forth by the blogger donplaypuks.

One particular vermin, using the name of Mamak Bendahara who is snorting here and there, giving innumerable excuses and engaging in verbal acrobatics (by the way this person sounds almost like a certain SW) deserves special mention in the hall of infamy. He is the first to be inducted into the Order of the White Feather.

PS: To Dnightcaller, we shall have our teh tarik in a more congenial atmosphere without being disturbed by the herd mentality crowd as I am very sure, the others whom I extended my invitation will not be there.

Tweet

Read more...

The Corrupting use of Anonymity

The use of anonymity has allowed unscrupulous shadowy operators with much ease, disseminate so many lies to the public through cyber-journalists. Sometimes, it is the cyber-journalists themselves who perpetrate the lies. The interest of the public at large is further short-changed when cyber-journalist themselves want anonymity. I am sure the 'sources' often quoted by cyber-journalists always begin their conversation with the comforting words- these are off the records yes?

We must also be aware that the process of brain-washing the public starts with off-the-record briefings for cyber- newspapermen. If they are then repeated by cyber-journalists who insist they want to remain comfortingly anonymous, then the lies and manipulations and deceptions are expanded to the nth degree.

I'm singling out Mamak Bendahara and Parpu Kari here.  If they have balls they will come to see me on the 9^th of May with convener Nightcaller at the appointed place. Both of them can repeat in person what they have stated in their comments to my face. Maybe to some people, hurling abusive language and expletives is second nature to them. Where I come from, children who do that will have their mouths smeared with chili padi. I am also calling this Pasquale to meet up and say what he said directly to my face.

This is how beltway journalism largely functions.  Hidden agenda seekers are routinely allowed to speak to the public while hiding behind journalist-granted anonymity. Our central objection:   by granting anonymity to these people including to the cyber-reporters, we are able to justify without challenge why certain people did what they did. We allow these people (sources and reporters) to spout utter nonsense, filled with internally contradictory and incoherent claims, without any accountability whatsoever.

Come again, how is this achievable? It becomes possible because we allow them, with zero journalistic justification -- to hide behind a wall of anonymity when making their case.  Whereas its use, is squarely at odds with the rules which journalists claim to affirm regarding the real use of anonymity which I have mentioned above.

Accordingly when we surveyed the abuse of anonymity during these last few years, we can also, in the spirit of what Rocky just did, issue a set of guidelines for when it is appropriate (and inappropriate) to use it. These include:

1. Don't assume anything cyber-journalists tell you is true. In fact, we are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
   
2. Don't print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true. As a mark of integrity, cyber-reporters must refuse the use of anonymity.
   
3. Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whistleblowers offering information that contradicts the official position. Your stand is probably truer.
   
4. don't offer any confidentiality to official spinners
   

To some people then, anonymity confers a license to disparage and abuse any one without shouldering responsibility. I say some people because I can understand the importance of retaining anonymity by some bloggers. That would include those who Rocky mentioned.

I may have misinterpreted Voice's boisterous and garrulous personality as being suggestive of permissiveness but never expected that misinterpretation to be used in such venomous manner by others. I can respect a blogger's wish to remain anonymous and will adhere to his/her wish. As an example I know the identity of many bloggers as they have conversed with me on the internet. They way they conduct themselves do not allow me to read suggestions of permissiveness and I respect that. That would include those who have disparaged me personally.

But I can't the say that for many bloggers who misuse the concept of anonymity. They employ it for twisted ends. It's done in the name of a higher cause and it is best served through anonymity. That is funny- we want transparency and indeed fight for it, but do so with such opaqueness.

It is just a big lie perpetrated with the use of the most undemocratic journalistic tool- the use of anonymity. While pretending to offer a journalistically sound, balanced take on the burning issues of the time, what they are actually doing is to deliberately churn out rank propaganda, drooling hagiographies of those they like, demonizing those they don't like, in order to secure for themselves future career-advancing benefits. How do they achieve that? They do so by becoming a favored message-carrier for the royal court at Putrajaya. Here is the upshot of my arguments:-

1. We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.
   
2. We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack
   
3. Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous.
   

Tweet

Read more...

Sakmongkol answers Rocky-2

The true intention of Anonymity.

The ethics which Rocky are championing? Here are some samples:

Dato' Bendahara said...

sakmongkol is a sick bastard with lousy english n no integrity.

Parpu Kari said...

YO MUTHAFUCKA, KJ ASS LICKER! I KNOW UR GETTING A LOT OF MONEY FROM THAT ASSHOLE, BUT DON'T YOU HAVE ANY DIGNITY, YOU MUTHAFUCKA?

I CAN PUKE WITH UR WRITING MAN!

WHAT THE FOOK UR TALKING ABOUT!

MEMANG POKEMON LA LU PENJILAT KJ!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I did not start the original article so as to arrive at the intention to expose anyone. But with these two comments which typify the usual stock-in trade of these denizens of anonymity, they have only hardened my resolve to do just that. It has now become 'a cause' to expose the hacks and the pompous claimants of purer causes and national interest.

The issues have gone beyond the issue of ethics. After going through the comments, the real contentious issue is the corrupting use of anonymity. How it is used by the typical representatives of Cyber-Guerillas Anonymous (CGAs) such as the above proves exactly why a war must be waged over and over again on writers claiming anonymity. I did not seek to do this, but it will now be a pleasure to expose these rotten apples who night-soil the genuine writers who want to remain anonymous.

Claiming as furthering the cause of national and higher interests, high-level priests of anonymity have been telling readers and mostly those who subscribed to their views that they have no intention of hurting another fellow human being. Such voluntary assurances are very pious and righteous indeed. It's their typical MO.

They then proceeded to faithfully communicate that seemingly pious and self righteous message, such as 'anonymous
sources at Putrajaya have told me/us
there's no intention to harm a particular person's chance to cari makan as Press secretary to the DPM by intercepting his appointment. Their motives are pure. The interception is not a political feather in the cap nor a warrior's earned scalp and it is not personal. The problem, they say, is the country's security may be compromised and that's what they are intrested in.They are, they claimed, protecting the interests of the DPM and by extension, the nation's.

There are several claims here, all attributable to anonymous sources including the reporters who insist they too want to remain anonymous which are disputable. First the pious claim, they don't want to hurt another fellow's right to pursue his interest. Second, the same anonymous sources through anonymous spokespersons claimed the first claim has to be sacrificed in the name of security.

The two claims are clearly contradicting one another. Everyone- the sources and the spokesperson want anonymity while remaining conscious of the contradictions. Why do they want that? Because the veracity of their positions and agenda are not provable as true and also because, they don't want to underwrite their claims with unimpeachable accountability. That's what anonymity does -- it allows dubious or even false claims to be spouted with impunity and without any accountability. 

That's why anonymity is such a valuable weapon for shadowy sources and informants and other creatures that inhabit the Hobbit world of 'higher causes' and such a risky and questionable practice for cyber-journalists.  If the claims from Reliable-Sources Anonymous are true about the intentions of the overlords at Putrajaya, then why can't they just attach their names to those claims and why weren't they made to do so by the CGAs before having their true and honest intentions amplified to the public?

Yes, I am indeed new to blogging. Before I started in June 2008, I have been reading them actually. It was sufficient for me to understand the practice of using anonymous calling cards by cyber journalists. They and their kind have engaged in all kinds of tortured public discussions and hear this people! -- Even promulgated guidelines for the proper use of anonymity (perhaps a sub-section of blogging ground rules) -- all of which, since then, have been almost entirely ignored and abused repeatedly. 

There are, of course, narrow circumstances in which anonymity is not only justifiable but crucial -- namely, when whistle-blowing reliable sources risk their jobs or even careers to divulge damaging information that the Government wants to hide -- but that obviously isn't how anonymity is being used in the vast majority of cases by beltway cyber-journalists, such as those documented above. (You know, the side roads, ring-roads along mainstream roads that most often confuse travelers and cause accidents?)

But I have yet to see the validity to extend that narrow justifiability of anonymity from risk-sensitive sources to cyber-reporters at large. Can anonymity be extended to the two cited above? Looking at the comments thus far, A Voice and Bigdog and even Rocky himself aren't exactly paragons of nobler use of anonymity either.

Instead, anonymity is now eagerly granted to any one even when they are doing nothing but spouting the ends of hidden-agenda setters ensconced deep in the upper reaches of Putrajaya and elsewhere through CGAs eager to be chosen as the Putrajaya Overlords' anointed message-carriers. In exchange, the CGAs are willing to agree to any conditions imposed by the hidden-agenda setters for that "honor." When RPK was doing all sort of exposures, he didn't hide his identity to get information from reliable sources.

The identity of his sources but not HIS remains anonymous. So to justify the use of anonymity because it facilitates the getting of information is flimsy. To move around unsuspecting story-droppers and later finding those being marketed around in blogosphere is even more unethical.

But no matter what legal protections exist; cyber-journalists should pause before handling information received from people who demand anonymity. Reporters should avoid promising anonymity to sources if it is being offered simply to encourage the source to say something in a dramatic or damaging way that the source would not say on the record. If the use of anonymity is tenuous for sources, it is even more for the reporters themselves. This use of anonymity harms the role of bloggers and diminishes the value of the confidentiality given to those who are real whistleblowers—people who actually risk their jobs and jail for what they may believe is a higher cause.

Tweet

Read more...