prime commentary L
WikiLeaks: Neither
VIEWPOINTS
WE SAY
Rise and fall,
through art
The Chinese art market has been a
phenomenon of the art world for over
a decade. It has now passed France’s
to be the third largest in the world.
There is a lot of cultural pride
involved in all of this, but Chinese
collectors are, in the final analysis,
also being savvy. There are big gains
to be made in holding Chinese art.
L EDITORIAL PAGE A22
COLUMNS
Similar, but not identical
We need to have a deep
appreciation of our cultural
kinship with China, but
also a keen awareness that
we are not China, to
realise Singapore’s competitive
advantage there, says Su Guaning.
L REVIEW PAGE A22
Good and bad of 2010
2010 saw some bad news, but we also
reported no country being invaded,
and a historic shift in economic power
to emerging economies like China,
says Gwynne Dyer.
L REVIEW PAGE A22
OUR READER SAYS
S-League needs a lift
All S-League stakeholders should
come together to give it a
much-needed boost. For instance,
increasing attendance at matches can
be done by having S-League fixtures
for the day played at one venue so
fans can gather and watch them at
one go, says M. Lukshumayeh.
L FORUM PAGE A24
ONLINE BLOGS
www.straitstimes.com
L Nirmal Ghosh on the real
wealth of nations.
a wiki nor a leak
Now an English word,
but what does it mean,
let alone stand for?
BY JEREMY AU YONG
L
AST week, WikiLeaks was de-
clared an English word.
The Texas-based Global Lan-
guage Monitor – which previ-
ously recognised Google, Twit-
ter and vuvuzela as English words – in-
ducted it into the language.
It said that the word had been referred
to by so many that it has met the criteria
of reach, depth and breadth to be consid-
ered a bona fide word.
However, they did not specify what
WikiLeaks would mean. And that, it
seems, is still very much up for debate.
No matter how you look at it, WikiLe-
aks is something of a contradiction.
It portrays itself as the defender of
freedom in the world, an underdog cham-
pion of free speech victimised by evil,
self-serving governments.
But to others, it is the evil, self-serv-
ing one, the epitome of an institution
gone wrong, that may have begun with
some noble purpose of publishing infor-
mation, but has since been turned over to
ego-boosting or other nefarious ends.
Even the name WikiLeaks is a misno-
mer. Critics point out it is neither a wiki
nor a leak.
The term wiki, as popularised by on-
line encyclopaedia Wikipedia, typically re-
fers to a website that allows the easy crea-
tion and editing of any number of inter-
linked Web pages. A wiki site is a commu-
nity effort, and users have a direct and im-
mediate impact on its content.
Yet, while WikiLeaks accepts – or at
least used to accept – submissions from
anyone, whether or not that item got pub-
lished and what form it took was the deci-
sion of one man: founder Julian Assange.
As for the leaks aspect, critics decry
the manner in which it allegedly got hold
of the diplomatic cables that created such
a brouhaha recently.
WikiLeaks considers its leaks as whis-
tle-blowing, yet “cablegate” is not quite
a whistle-blowing case. Some or all of the
250,000 cables are suspected to have
come from a United States soldier, Pri-
vate Bradley Manning, who is alleged to
have stolen the information and then
made it public. That, as one blogger put
it, amounts to sabotage.
If the information revealed ultimately
exposes the corruption of governments
and brings about reform for public good,
that wrong might reasonably be said to
have had some good effect.
WikiLeaks itself justifies publishing
classified information this way, saying
PUNCHLINES
THE STRAITS TIMES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29 2010 PAGE A2
this “improves transparency, and this
transparency creates a better society for
all people”, they explain on their site.
They add: “Better scrutiny leads to re-
duced corruption and stronger democra-
cies in all society’s institutions, including
government, corporations and other or-
ganisations.”
But this is not the case in “cablegate”.
To be fair, WikiLeaks’ early work did
have some good public objective, even if
it did not always have the desired impact.
Their Kenyan leak is perhaps the most
oft-cited success story. In 2007, WikiLe-
aks disclosed a report by international
risk assessment group Kroll alleging some
US$3 billion (S$3.9 billion) in corruption
on the part of relatives and associates of
former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi.
WikiLeaks claims its report swung the
vote by 10 per cent and led to the forming
of a more open government.
While its disclosure was an issue in the
2007 election in Kenya, it is hard to say
how it influenced voters, and certainly im-
possible to determine that it swung 10
per cent of the votes. By many accounts,
it was a troublesome poll, with incum-
bent President Mwai Kibaki declared the
victor amid allegations of vote rigging.
It is also hard to say if WikiLeaks had
any lasting impact. Ironically, a cable it
published from the US Embassy in Nairo-
bi describes the Kenyan Cabinet as the
most corrupt in Africa.
That Kroll report was WikiLeaks’ most
straightforward success. Since then, it
has been wading in muddy ethical waters.
Its release of Afghanistan and Iraq war
diaries was controversial at best. It lifted
the veil on those war zones, but in both
cases, it was criticised for endangering
the lives of US troops.
Still, it was clear what good it hoped to
do: Release information and improve
transparency, in the hope that this in-
creases accountability and, ultimately,
better governance and a better society.
The same cannot be said of the diplo-
matic cables. Precious few of those re-
leased contain news or anything remotely
resembling whistle-blowing.
Instead, there are remarks about
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il’s flab,
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s volup-
tuous blonde nurse and Zimbabwean Pres-
ident Robert Mugabe’s oversized ego.
In a word: Gossip.
What public good that does is question-
able. In any case, what need is there for
complete transparency in diplomacy?
An opinion in The Economist maga-
zine recently put it this way: “It wouldn’t
make the world a better place if Washing-
ton were unable to say anything to Jerusa-
lem without its being heard by Riyadh,
any more than it would if you were una-
ble to tell your spouse anything without
its being heard by your boss.”
WikiLeaks would have been naive if it
believed releasing gossip cables would im-
prove society. One is left simply wonder-
ing why it did it. Why didn’t it sieve out
the important from the inane, the impact-
ful from the reckless? Does ego have any-
thing at all to do with this?
At one point, Mr Assange threatened
to release more cables if action is taken
against him or his organisation, demon-
strating his own penchant for using insti-
tutional resources for very personal ends.
So, although the word is now legit,
WikiLeaks remains as nebulous as ever –
it remains a group difficult to oppose, dif-
ficult to support and nearly impossible to
define.
As those superhero comic strip charac-
ters always say, with great power, comes
great responsibility. WikiLeaks aspires to
superhero status, but it has not shown
enough responsibility for the amount of
power it one day hopes to have.
jeremyau@sph.com.sg