Still misunderstanding new media
Monday, March 29, 2010 at 3:34AM Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's approach to new media appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the medium; he cites astroturfing and unverified contact numbers and emails provided in online communications as proof that new media is still not as trustworthy, and does not inform public opinion.
"(The critics) always end up saying that the government must bring down the property prices quickly, sharply, immediately, or else after the next election (they) will stop supporting (us)."
Mr Lee said upon verifying the emails, the names, phone and even IC numbers attached turned out to be fake.
"This was clearly not a straight forward feedback consultation discussion dialogue, but a covert attempt to pressure the government for perhaps personal benefits and in the process also to confuse the public as to what Singaporeans think."
In other words, feedback is only looked at if they can attach an identity to it. The message does not matter as much as putting your name on it apparently. And this is the point PM Lee and the PAP misses: the message matters more than anything else, and unverified identities do not bolster nor weaken the significance or truthfulness of the message. Nor does it indicate any clandestine attempts to mislead the public.
New media, as they insist on calling it, is about engagement. That means we go our half of the way, and you meet us there. Anonymity is part of the deal, because some people prefer to keep their identities private. It is why I allow anonymous comments on this blog, like many other bloggers, because if that encourages you to speak up, then maybe it will spur greater participation. Is that not what feedback is about, to gather different opinions and perspectives?
By discrediting anonymous contributors because they choose to remain anonymous is a blatant disregard for the substance of the issue. Names and identities can be discredited and distorted more easily than ideas, and we should never allow that mistake to be made. The validity of feedback lies not in the identity of the person who provided it, but rather in the validity of the message itself.
Another question I have for PM Lee is this: if online campaigns are indeed so easy to mount, why does the PAP government fail so badly at its online activities, such as the Youth PAP Facebook pages, the P65 blog, or the atrocious YPAP activists that plague online discussions but cannot hold a substantive argument when challenged?
Until the day the PAP understands this arena, we can expect nothing else but disrespect and arrogance from the ruling party. And they wonder why we have such disdain for them. They dismiss anonymous feedback at their own peril.
Leong Sze Hian over at The Online Citizen also rebuts.
Maybe the editors and writers of theconlinecitizen are arguably the exception rather than the norm in the Singapore online sphere, in having real faces in our numerous past public events, names and contacts.
I support the Government’s stand that it should not be pressured by online campaigns that are manifestly a covert attempt by special interest groups at pressuring the government for personal gain which does not represent the interests of Singaporeans in general.
However, when the issues raised have the potential to affect the livelihood or standard of living of a significant number of Singaporeans, the government should take a more nuanced approach and not merely sweep such campaigns under the carpet.
In other words, focus on the message and the issue, regardless of the perceived intent or motive of the sender, whether fake or otherwise.
Reader Comments (3)
There's a Chinese saying for this - 指鸡骂鸭 (Point Chicken, Scold Duck)
I wish to disagree. While the message is important, the identity of the message bringers is equally as important, if not more so. That way, we wld know the motive. Also, whether it's just a small handful who magnify their grievances by repeatedly assuming myriad identities or a genuine groundswell...
Lk at what's happening in BKK... is it a real groundswell movement or are the demonstrators paid agent provocateurs and proxies for Thaksin?
@auntielucia: You misunderstand the Bangkok situation. Nothing in politics is that clear cut, especially when they have a very popular former PM who has been driven into the corner, the royalists and the ruling parties trying to keep their power bases and not afraid of using the people to do that. And then there is the army. It's a complex situation that calls for a detailed post, and I'm getting someone who understands it to write it.
Which brings me to my point: while it's easy to shoot the messenger, or shoot down the message via discrediting the people behind it, it should not remove the validity of the message. I'm not advocating weighing the relevance of a message by seeing how many "people", real or fake, submit complaints or letters. But discrediting the message because some were sent in by "fake" people is a move borne out of arrogance.
Let's take an extreme example. If Stalin were alive, and somehow raised an alarm about US housing prices in 2007, under what you say that mesage would be discredited immediately, because it's Stalin!
What's really disturbing is many people have raised that same alarm, economists, that were shot down. I don't have to remind you what happened since then.