What’s in a name? That which we call a truth?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose?” Those famous words were uttered by Juliet as she lamented an age old feud between the Capulet and Montague families. Yet the rhetorical question “what’s in a name” confronts us as we grapple with the dilemma of making ourselves known or covering our true identity with a pseudonym whenever we produce works of a politically sensitive nature.

One of the most important milestones in the field of statistics was the development of the Student’s t test by William Sealy Gosset. A statistician working for the Guiness brewery, Gosset devised the t test to monitor the quality of beer. Due to the fact that the Guiness company was using statistics as a trade secret, he had to publish the test in Biometrika using his pen name, “Student”. Thus, the world owes the editors of Biometrika a debt of gratitude for having an open-minded approach in allowing Gosset to publish using his pseudonym.

Yet this debate between coming out in the open or masking one’s identity will undoubtedly be re-visited again by another category of netizens – the video bloggers. The recent changes to the Film Act seems to be putting red tapes and restrictions in place rather than taking a liberal approach. It is a case of taking one step forward followed by ten steps backwards.

It is likely that video bloggers will take the same path as what many did during the General Elections of 2006 when party political films were banned – anonymous posting of videos online. And those who feel that their videos contravene the currently amended Film Act will be tempted to hide their true identity.

Blogging, be it writing or videoing, in one’s real identity is a good measure in ensuring that the netizen is truthful as his credibility is at stake. However, using a pseudonym does not mean that the netizen is attempting to post untruthful materials. It could be the prevailing circumstances that may result in the latter being adversely affected should his identity be known.

The matter is not so simplistic especially when it comes to this special category of personnel known as whistleblowers. When a person witnesses an event that goes against public interests and feels strongly that action should be taken in order to prevent further damages, he might resort to whistleblowing. The fact that whistleblowers can be prosecuted by the entities with which they are alleging misconduct adds further to their dilemma. Thus, there is such a thing as anonymous whistleblowing to protect the person’s real identity.

And it is true that civil servants working in certain ministries have feedbacked that they are not allowed to even write forum letters to the Straits Times on topics pertaining to their work. Doing so will lead to their dismissal. And if they feel the need to articulate their concerns because such will be of interest to the public, what choice do they have other than going anonymous?

For instance, one pertinent question that Singaporeans have always asked with regards to the statistics released by our manpower ministry is how many of the currently employed and/or unemployed are Singapore citizens, and how many are Permanent Residents? The manpower ministry has been lumping Singapore citizens together with Permanent Residents, and that has left everyone guessing. Now, if (a hypothetical example) a particular civil servant within the ministry has access to the actual number of citizens and Permanent Residents and feels that this number should be made known to the public so that certain kinds of actions can be taken, should he present this information using a pseudonym? If he does, there is a legitimate reason to do so because he can be prosecuted if he releases his real identity!

At the end the day, it is the truthfulness of the work that matters the most irregardless of the name behind it. Thus, an apt play of Juliet’s words should read “What’s in a name? That which we call a truth?”