New Media more than blogs

The Malaysian experience with politician entry into the New Media realm is somewhat echoed in the Singapore cyber-scape. Notwithstanding the fact that the Malaysian opposition's Internet strategy is far more robust than Singapore's, many of points brought up in this article, and others, are very relevent to your situation.

Thursday September 18, 2008
New Media more than blogs
Wikimedia
By OON YEOH

The Internet has become such a key component in the political battleground that any party which ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped.

RIGHT after the March general election, there was a sense of urgency amongst Barisan Nasional politicians to get aboard the New Media bandwagon.

There was talk of requiring current and aspiring MPs to set up their own blogs.

But harnessing the power of New Media takes more than just setting up blogs. It requires a sound understanding of how public opinion is shaped through online means and how political news and views are disseminated in cyberspace.

“The Barisan’s attitude towards bloggers, blogging and the blogosphere has been reactionary, erratic and inconsistent,” says political analyst Ong Kian Ming, who recently did a study comparing the use of New Media by Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat.

Barisan did get off on the right footing after the election, Ong notes. Information Minister Shabery Cheek declared that the Government would engage with bloggers and he even went as far as to invite some bloggers to appear on a TV interview show.

One of the first online personalities on this programme was none other than Raja Petra Kamarudin, whose website, Malaysia Today, was subsequently banned and then later reinstated.

Currently, he’s being detained under the dreaded ISA for stuff found on his website. “RPK’s case demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of the Barisan Government’s attitude towards bloggers,” says Ong.

Six months after the election, how much have the Barisan representatives responded to the call to set up their own blogs?

Not much, says Ong who found that of the 85 Barisan MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, only 13 of them currently have their own blogs (15%).

In contrast, 59 out of the 79 Pakatan MPs from the peninsula (almost three quarters of them) have their own blogs.

Note that he did not include independent MP Ibrahim Ali in his survey as he is neither with Barisan nor Pakatan.

Nor did he include East Malaysian MPs in his survey because blogs are not so important there.

In the past, the Barisan could rely on the mainstream media not to report or under-report any offensive remarks that may have been made by a Barisan politician.

Now, it is likely that such remarks would be picked up by online news sites or observant bloggers. Once such news leaks into cyberspace, the fallout is instantaneous.

And the mainstream media, which has already been emboldened since the election, will pick it up too. We’ve seen this phenomenon of blog scoops trickling into mainstream news happen in the United States and now it’s starting to happen here.

The Barisan is not used to playing the role of the underdog in the political sphere. But it is clearly outmanned and outgunned in cyberspace.

The number of independent blogs which can be categorised as anti-Barisan significantly outnumber the blogs which are supportive of the Barisan, says Ong, who adds: “It’s hard to name a single influential blogger who can be categorised as pro-Barisan.”

Barisan cannot overcome this disadvantage in cyberspace by throwing money at the problem. Even if it paid a whole army of bloggers to set up pro-Barisan blogs, it wouldn’t work as their credibility would be suspect straight away.

Mercenary bloggers just can’t match the passion of the ones who do it as a labour of love, who do it as a matter of personal commitment.

This is not to say that New Media is a lost cause for the Barisan. Even if it can’t get the blogosphere to support it immediately, it can set a good example by having its MPs and senior leaders maintain good websites or blogs.

They can start by emulating DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang who began embracing the Internet in the mid-90s.

He even bothered to learn HTML just so his party could have its own website and was one of the key drivers in continuously upgrading the party website, publishing the press statements and also encouraging its MPs to start blogs of their own.

Anwar Ibrahim’s website is very comprehensive and it has sections where one can make financial contributions, request Anwar to speak at events and view his past speeches and op-eds.

He also has a blog which has his public schedule, YouTube videos, related news items as well as press releases.

Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has joined the blogosphere with over six million visits to date, a remarkable achievement by any standards.

In stark contrast, no senior Barisan leader can claim to have the same kind of Internet presence or traffic.

The most vilified person in the Malaysian blogosphere, Khairy Jamaluddin, does have his own website and it includes a blog.

It will take more than having his own online presence to counter all the negative postings about him but Khairy did garner some attention recently when he criticised the MCMC’s decision to block access to RPK’s website.

Perhaps other Barisan MPs can follow his lead and be willing to express their views frankly and openly through blogs.

The online advantage that Pakatan enjoys does not guarantee them electoral success.

There is no replacing the ‘offline’ activities that are part and parcel of what political parties and politicians need to do – the constituency servicing, the face-to-face meetings, the ceramahs, and so on, says Ong.

“But the Internet has become such a key component of the political battleground that any party that ignores its importance is likely to find itself handicapped,” he adds.

Reporters without Borders on Gopalan's Sentence

Blogger Gopalan Nair gets three months in prison for insulting judge

Reporters Without Borders condemns the three-month prison sentence which a Singapore court imposed yesterday on blogger Gopalan Nair for insulting a high court judge in a blog entry. A Singaporean lawyer who became a US citizen in 2005, Nair plans to file an appeal on 20 September, the day he is due to begin serving his prison sentence.

“This sentence is disproportionate,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Nair was given the severest sentence possible under the criminal code for insult. We urge the judicial authorities to be reasonable and to reverse this decision to send a blogger to prison.”

Nair’s trial under article 228 of the criminal code began on 10 September. He defended himself.

During the first hearing, Nair denied allegations that he had sent emails to Belinda Ang, the high court judge he was accused of insulting, and to another judge. “What I wrote on my blog is addressed to the whole world,” he said. He also accused the police of taking his notebook containing the password to his email account and blog.

Nair, 58, was arrested in Singapore on 31 May under article 13 (d) of the Miscellaneous offences Act) and was charged four days later with “sedition” (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/) for criticising Ang and another judge, Lai Siew Chiu, for their handling of a defamation case that resulted in Chee Soon Juan, the head of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, spending 12 days in prison (and his sister, Siok Chin, spending 10 days in prison).

Nair was freed on bail on 5 June pending trial. His blog is still accessible in Singapore.

How Good News Becomes Bad Press

A recent Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) survey has place Singapore as having one fo the best judicial systems in Asia; only second to Hongkong.

If only we could say the same about our press.

This is the article as found in the CNA website.

HK, Singapore voted having best judicial systems in Asia
Posted: 15 September 2008 0334 hrs

SINGAPORE: Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption, PERC added.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference", while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weightage. - AFP/de

Now these are the closing paragraphs that was conveniently left out by CNA.

"This bias is possibly most obvious in Singapore," it said, noting that the city-state's top rating in the survey is not shared by political activists, who have criticised the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) for using the judiciary to silence critics.

"In Singapore, the general perception of expatriates is that local politics has not compromised the way commercial and criminal law is conducted," PERC said.

Source: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080914/afp/080914181252business.html

There you go. In terms of business protection and fostering a stable business environment, we are top notch. And in the view of big business, as long as the impartial dispense of justice vis-a-vis political opponents is concerned, they don't really care as long as it does not effect their business.

No wonder the PAP always repeats the point that the economy will crumble when they go. Blaaa

For another point of view on Singpaore's judiciary and press freedoms, you can download the report by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI).

P.s. At least I’m glad to say that the Today paper has far more editorial integrity than their big brother press. The above closing paragraphs were included in their website.

Two Hats, Same Story

Why WP didn't get permit for event
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_276601.html

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?', regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

This latest public relations announcement is frustrating to read.

In essence, the response is that events organized by political parties will promote disorder and attract unruly behaviour, therefore all such events will be denied permits. This is an excuse we are now all familiar with.

Our instinctual response then would be to wonder why PAP events get special concession. Reason is, since the PAP is the incumbent government, all their outdoor activities, no matter how obviously party-related, are rewarded permits on the basis that they are wearing their ‘government hat’ and not their ‘party hat’. Or better yet, they are merely invited guests to ‘non-political’ outdoor events.

I understand the rationale for taking into account the organisers’ antecedence when considering permits. Groups (political parties, NGOs, charities… etc) known to be rowdy or aggressive in their campaigning should rightly have their subsequent requests for permits rejected. But to issue a blanket ban on political groups from organizing outdoor events (other than rallies during election time), is absolutely ridiculous.

Does that mean opposition parties (who apparently have only one hat – the ‘trouble-maker hat’) have no chance of organising outdoor events beyond the confines of the ‘yellow-boxed’ Speakers’ Corner?

One Country, Two Hats, Two systems indeed.

P.s
Let us not forget:

Banned National Day Pink Picnic
Banned Indignation Pink Run
Disrupted Tak Boleh Tahan protest
Approved 5000 strong Case Consumer Rights Day protest march on 16 March 2008.
Approved Expatriate Women gathering for Myanmar