The ‘Janet Wee’ versus The Online Citizen Saga
December 29th, 2009 | 
Author: OPINION
There was much discussion lately in Singapore’s blogosphere about a “police report” made by a “Janet Wee” which was also forwarded to other government agencies about a “seditious” article posted on socio-political blog The Online Citizen.
Janet claimed that the article was “seditious” because it had accused Singapore strongman MM Lee Kuan Yew of “instigating riots and unrest” in Singapore.
The Online Citizen then posted her entire email onto its site including her “name”.
The immediate reaction from netizens was predictable, with many lampooning Janet for making the “report”.
From the tone and language used by Janet in her “report”, it is quite obvious that it was written hastily in the spur of the moment. Her thoughts appeared to be disorganized and incoherent at some point.
Janet is probably some die-hard fan of MM Lee who never heard a single nasty word about him in her entire life which may explain why she got a rude shock when she saw the damning headline of The Online Citizen’s article on Google News.
Perhaps overwhelmed by her emotions, she instinctively wrote an email to lodge a complaint to the authorities and CC one to The Online Citizen as a form of protest as well.
It is pretty clear that Janet did not read the article in its entirety at all. The Online Citizen is simply reporting what was written in “The Fajar Generation”, a book published recently by former members of the University Sosialist Club, some of whom were members of the opposition Barisan Sosialist.
Janet should have complained to the relevant authorities about the authors of “The Fajar Generation” and not The Online Citizen for the “seditious” remarks made about MM Lee.
Technically speaking, Janet’s email cannot be described as a “police report” at all. She will have to make a trip down to a police station to make a police report in person with her real name and NRIC number recorded on paper before the police will even consider whether there is a need to take further action.
Even if Janet were to make a genuine police report, it is highly doubtful that the police will take any action against The Online Citizen for a simple reason: “The Fajar Generation” was already launched in October this year. Had it contained any seditious remarks about MM Lee, its three writers would all be arrested by now. The Straits Times even carried a full page interview with one of them – Dr Poh Soo Kai last Sunday.
Janet’s identity remains unknown till now. For all we know, she may be some fictitious character who does not exist in real life at all. One TOC reader had traced ”Janet Wee” to a few possible “candidates” including one who is working in the Singapore Press Holdings. What if these Janet Wees are harassed by TOC readers who are still angry with “her” over the “police report” when they are not the culprits in the first place?
The Online Citizen need not get provoked so easily by “complaint” emails sent by anonymous readers. The Temasek Review receives similar “threats” like this all the time.
We have readers claiming that they have lodged a report against us to so and so, this and that and whatever. For those who don’t leave their real names and contacts behind, we simply ignore them.
If we were to publicize every single “report” filed against us by our “Janet Wees” to the whole world including their identities (real or otherwise) like what The Online Citizen did, who will dare to send their feedback to us anymore? We will never compromise on the confidentiality of our readers, whether they are our supporters or critics.
The Online Citizen’s decision to blow up the matter may have increased its readership in the short term, but will have devastating long-term repercussions on its future growth and development.
While it can count among a core group of loyal readers for support, we must remember that the majority of Singapore netizens are not only politically apathetic, but conservative, cautious and timid as well.
With a “police report” hanging over its head, it may encounter difficulties in attracting new columnists to write for them in the future. Even some of its existing writers may be having second thoughts about continuing their association with it.
On the positive side, the Janet Wee saga has put the PAP on the defensive and create a lot of unwanted negative publicity for them. Netizens will naturally jump to the conclusion that Janet Wee is from the PAP camp regardless of the truth.
The outpouring of public sympathy and support for The Online Citizen will probably make the PAP think twice before “touching” another blog again.
The Temasek Review has come under a lot of pressure lately after our spat with SPH. With The Online Citizen taking some “heat” away from us, we can finally breathe alot easier.
Posted in 
Tags: 23 Responses to “The ‘Janet Wee’ versus The Online Citizen Saga”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Personal opinion:
It is not fair to all those who were born with a name of Janet Wee. At this point of time, the only fact is that there is someone who claimed to be Janet Wee, and write a simple email. This simple email is neither a proper complain nor a proper letter, as it is not up to both standard.
At the end of the day, a formal letter needs his/her IC number as unique identification to differentiate him/her from other Janet Wee.
@ObserverOne , this is very true indeed. A proper Police Report although not necessary on an NP299 but it has to be clearly identified as to the complainant’s true identity and complainant must be contactable for further fact finding and proper follow-up statement.
At most this email will only qualify as ‘informative’ and Janet Wee an informant, ie: the equivalent of ‘25ers’, in hokkien.
All of you should take this as a natural reaction from PAP, still doing the same old tricks after so many years.
You should be worried if PAP is “too quiet” on this
Hi TR,
I’m a regular reader of both TR and TOC.
In all fairness, TOC posted her entire email, but other than the name “Janet Wee” no other sensitive particulars were revealed.
As her email was also “addressed to several other people, including MM Lee Kuan Yew, the Attorney-General, Mr Jeremy Au Yeong of the Straits Times, Google, among others”, it was obvious “Janet” wanted a wide audience, and TOC obliged.
Firstly, anyone can make a police report, even a 12 year old or a mentally ill schizophrenic. Similarly, the online citizen can also make a police report against Janet wee if they wish to.
Throughout my life, I can’t remember how many times in my life where some punk who is obviously wrong in the eyes of the law threatens to make a police report against me. I would just tell them to go ahead. I have had someone who tried to rip me off or even assault me telling me they will call the police, i said thanks for doing me a favour!
The issue is will there be a case for the police to prosecute? Defamation is always a civil suit in singapore, under tortous law.
I can’t remember the last the the AG prosecuted someone for demfamation.
Making a police report is pointless in this case really..
my view.
Oops, have a little confession to make.
Just had my biggest orgasm in 2009. Hope no one is offended
Ahh.. i just read janet was filing for sedition.
interesting then.
as far as i can recall, the sedition act has always been used only against racist remarks. it has never been used against political opponents.
surely a conviction under the seidition act for political means would be unthinkable! it goes against the very rights of free speech and freedom of opinions.
the way i see it, this would at best be a defamation case not seditious one.
I think TOC wants to promote their live forum today so they dish out such a sensational news. I think TOC is doing something quite civilized and remarkable. There are more high profile bloggers and speakers on their site which reflect a certain milestone of what they can contribute to politics as a whole in Singapore.
Come to think about it, something is amiss somewhere. TOC’s writers are all known in real life, they dare to slam LKY frequently and they are still “surviving”. It’s more than meets the eye. For all we know, they are the PAP IB in disguise!
I am a regular reader of TOC and I must admit I am pretty disappointed at their rather amateurish knee-jerk reaction to Janet Wee’s email which does not reflect well on its maturity.
With people like Leong Sze Hian around, I would have expected TOC to handle the matter more discreetly. It should have either ignored it altogether or write a short article on it without revealing the email.
Agree with TR that the episode will probaby hamper TOC’s efforts to recruit good writers to join its team in the future.
Really disappointed…..
vv said: The issue is will there be a case for the police to prosecute? Defamation is always a civil suit in singapore, under tortous law.
NOT entirely true. There is provision under the law for Criminal Defamation, remember previous CJ YPH?
Dear Sinkapore,
I know that defamation exists under the penal code so yes, the AG can prosecute
but i cannot recall the last time the AG initiated proceedings in a defamation case…i don’t even think it has happened before.
Both this janet wee and toc are jokers – one a whiner, another a crybaby. TOC = Talk Only Cock.
It is mind-boggling to me. Has anyone sit back and calmly thought about this?
A mere EXPRESSION OF INFORMATION released from historical archive – even if disputed – a seditiou offence at law?
If it is, anyone reading the bibliography of Adolf Hitler in Germany, must be engaged in seditious act in Germany? Anyone reading or writing any comment even by way of MERE historical reference about the May 13 1969 tragedy also commits sedition in Malaysia including the Government’s television media portrayal of past history? Anyone writing about “Operation Coldstore” and “Operation Spectrum” in Singapore or any newsreader on national television network or print media or anyone reading those words in news print uttering those “repugnant” words of “Operation Coldstore” and “Operations Spectrum” commit sedition?
I am about to die from a heart attack soon. I am frightened that Changi Hotel might be overcrowded soon.
Maybe someone should call an ambulance soon!!!! HURRY UP!!!!.
I believe that sedition is about any conduct (not just passing reference to and expression of ) to incite ( “to urge” emotively ) violent overthrown of “democractically-elected” or “undemocratically-elected” political institutions such as advocating terrorism.
A writing reference of information is equal to “terrorism” amounting to “sedition”?
This one looks to me NOT like a “slippery slope” but a very steep and deep vertical cliff over the other side of extreme “irrational exuberance”
I think TOC just need to ask those power that be these question – IS THE EXPRESSION OF INFORMATION, not an emotional-driven incite to violent overthrow of establish order – seditious?
And, if so, is the IMAGINARY HYPOTHETICAL PROHIBITING BAN ON writing about Singapore history of overthrowing Japanese occupation an UNLAWFUL VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROTECTION?
If we cannot CONSITUTIONALLY write history, HOW IS OUR KIDS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT OUR HISTORY and relate it to our highfalutin pledge and our flag every school mornings?
Anyone wants to beat up the stupidity of my “seditious” thoughts here????
ALL ARE WELCOME.
at first,some bootlickers complain about “vulgarities” and now
they got bolder and tell us,”no constructive criticisms…”
next,they would demand “public apology” and ultimately to
“praise and vote pap”?
what is the opposition going to say about this?
did we see any “incited” marching on the roads near HONG LIM?
sg has a problem but why is it that the majority do not seem to acknowledge or admit ?
janet wee is barking up the wrong dog. TOC is quite tame compared to TR. we don’t read “explosive” news on TOC, TOC like to focus on subjects like environment,foreign workers etc., though important, do not offend pap at all.
all i can say,much ado about “janet wee”
@vv
I quoted the case of a remiser against then CJ Yong, did I?
Seah Pock Rong aka mr Smiley on Wed, 30th Dec 2009 11:06 am
“sg has a problem but why is it that the majority do not seem to acknowledge or admit ?”
DO THE MAJORITY NEED TO BROADCAST THEIR ACKNOWLDEGEMENT OR ADMIT THE PROBLEMS IN SG HERE FOR YOUR BEGGING INFORMED NEEDS?
Personally I didn’t have an issue with TOC publishing the email (unless the sender explicitly had stated that they wished it to remain confidential) – but according to TOC since it was made known that it was copied to the MSM too, I think publishing it in its entirety was fine.
I have a strong hope and belief that it is possible to have an almost ideal society where things are discussed properly.
In this view, I do hope both TOC and TR can lead well.
There is no clear guidance about it so far. But one thing for sure, the current situation of how things are discussed are very poor, especially in main stream media.
Having TR and TOC (note that I change the sequence to show fairness) growing so fast and so far, I have more confidence. Now, with this growth, both will have to assume more responsibility. Get out of name dropping behavior, blaming, framing, conditioning or other negative writing tactics that are employed by others. Focus on fact. Have more in depth analysis. If you can afford, engage professional in each and every aspect of your analysis.
“majority do not seem to acknowledge or admit ?”
will the authority allow the solidarity of the “majority” be shown or displayed in the street on any issue at any one time. the art of divide and rule practiced to perfection.
if not for the internet, more of us will still be living in plato’s cave (or frog well).
I usually dont post in Blogs but your blog forced me to, amazing work.. Kind regards from france