Is this the end of the cyber cold war?

Last week, while watching one of the US New channels – can’t remember which one now – I came across a speech by Senator Dodd who was announcing his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Sen. Dodd served 35 yrs in politics and is the current U.S. banking committee chairman that has helmed highly televised senate testimonial hearings surrounding the financial meltdown.

What struck me was his calm dignity and honesty when he declared “I am a Democrat and very proud of my party’s contributions to the vitality and strength of America”. But that was not the line that really resonated with me. Halfway through his speech he affirmed “I believe in bipartisan solutions, but I also believe you can only achieve those results with vibrant, robust and civil partisan debate”.

Then I began to think of Singapore. But I wasn’t thinking about how partisan debate has evolved but rather how the Government’s attitude towards alternative opinions and viewpoints emanating from new media sources has changed. Which naturally leads to the question: “Are netizens still automatically viewed as engaging in partisan debate every time a critical comment on a government initiative is made?”

Let’s look at some pivotal events in the last 3 years. Recall the Brown-Bhavani saga in 2006 where the government’s threshold of tolerance was tested when a semi-anonymous blogger “crossed the line” by bringing satire into mainstream media. The response was unbendingly harsh and forced the removal of Mr Brown from the TODAY team.

The key statement in Bhavani’s diatribe was this: “If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics”. The bottom-line was a warning to all to stay within your own realm whereby you cannot affect public opinion.

However, this implicit drawing of a cyber OB marker proved to be only a temporary truce. In 2007, rather than risking an all out open war, the PAP opted to rebut anti-establishment views by putting up postings anonymously online. It was as if the Brown-Bhavani saga, and the failed attempt to ban political videos during the 2006 general elections, was analogous to World War I & II. The next phase announced by then Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, represented a Cold War of sorts, where enemies are known but not clearly defined and propaganda is the name of the game. As MP Baey Yam Keng infamously put it, “The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”

So with some help from the PAP Internet Brigade, the Internet would be left to self-regulate itself. But as with the real Cold War, there were periods of prolonged calm and of high tension. The calm was encapsulated in a 2007 paper by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). The paper, entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”, signaled a promising paradigm shift in relations between warring factions of anonymous critics (whom were increasingly identifying themselves)and Government spokespeople (whom were increasingly anonymising themselves).

But high tension is never far away, and the Government broke its “silence” in early 2009 (after tucking their heads between their thighs for the Mas Selamat Fiasco, Town Council Loses, CDC bonuses, Government lapses ... etc). Seizing on an event that had nothing to do with “online critics” in the first place, then Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and current acting “Minister of Propaganda”, Lui Tuck Yew chided netters for not policing comments that voiced elation over the assault of MP Seng Han Thong by one of his constituents.

He went on to say:

"I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.

'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.

'But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.'

So we blew it; at least in the eyes of the PAP we did. But even a seasoned PAP minister, our Foreign Minister no less, struggled to engage in a less traditional platform. Naturally, 2009 shaped up as a tension filled year, with 2010 promising much of the same.

So imagine my surprise when in the turn of new year, NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General and PAP MP Madam Halimah Yacob wrote in to Temasek Review to civilly clarify what she felt was inaccuracies in an article on a speech she had made. You can read more about it here.

Did this gesture signal the end of the Cold War and a thawing of hostility between new media agents and Governmental officials? Before I could answer that, the cynic in me questioned whether this engagement was sanctioned or a mere PR slip by an MP eager to protect her good name? If the former, then we should hope to see a future of vibrant, robust and civil debate over alternate media platforms. If the latter, well, MP Halimah should be expecting a call to tea sometime soon and we best prepare for more of the same.

SingaNews: Divine intervention or distraction?

I was reading a Kent Ridge Common feature article on the controversy surrounding the new news website SingaNews.com and could not help but feel disturbed at the direction the debate has taken.

The article’s title, “Why a pro-family program should rise above sexual issues”, immediately made my hair stand as it set the article up to miss the point entirely.

Firstly, it is not just a simple polemic battle between pro-homosexual and pro-heterosexual camps. To paint it as such is to ignore the real bone of contention; the very real possibility of a hidden agenda.

We have all been distracted with this mainstream family values debate, that everyone seems to have forgotten to ask this question: “What business is it of a news portal to have a pro-family/procreation agenda?”. And to use Kent Ridge Common’s words, “why is a news portal having a pro-family program anyway?”.

If the people behind SingaNews were really interested in promoting the “heterosexuality of a couple with a view to procreate”, shouldn’t they start an outreach program or a pro-family council that counsels and assists families in all areas that affect family planning? How would having a news portal help with this?

Well, since no one wants to say it, I will. They need SingaNews as a propaganda tool for a whole load of agendas, pro-family included. While I agree with Sam that there is nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda and that SingaNews will add to discourse variety, I get rather annoyed with double speak, orchestrated misdirection and hypocrisy.

It is plainly obvious that there is a Christian agenda that has been purposefully watered down and made more palatable with the “mainstream values” tagline. Lets not forget that SingaNews CEO Mathew Yap introduced the site in a soft launch in church on 9 Sep 2009. The event was organized by ATRIA (Apologetics Through Rich Internet Applications), a New Media Group (NMG) project that focuses on empowering Christian bloggers and New Media publishers in various forms of “e-vangelism”. He also shared the stage with Thio Li-ann, vocal critic agains the repeal of section 337A and daughter of Thio Su-Mien, self-styled Feminist Mentor that orchestrated the hostile takeover of Aware not too long ago. The site is also funded by Christian donors.

Yet with all the writing on the wall, Mathew Yap maintains that SingaNews has no Christian agenda. And in an effort to drill home this point, we have some netters trying to paint the debate as pro-family vs gays when it is more than that.

In itself, I fully support pro-family values, but that doesn’t mean I want a news portal to craft stories with a focus on promoting it. That said, there seems to be an orchestrated effort to make it seem that if you are pro-family, you are in turn pro-SingaNews; a direction the Kent Ridge Commons is trying to take.

The power of propaganda is the persistent drilling of a desired message through both subtle and not so stubtle message delivery. The Chrisitan evangelical community have power and influence within their own circles, but have realised they are losing the propaganda battle over both the MSM and new media channels. The formations of ATRIA and SingaNews are testiment to this and their renewed desired to expand their clout. It also seems that they are roping in bloggers to help distract the netter community as well.

While they have every right to push an agenda, their actions thus far have won them few friends, and i suspect will eventually prove to be their downfall. Which is too bad really, considering that an alternative news site with a who's who of ex-journalists would have dramtically expanded the local discourse.

~~ The road to hell is paved with good intentions ~~

Be Warned but Don't Be Fooled

Some thoughts on Minister Lui's remarks during a dialogue at Singapore Press Club.

While the MSM in media will likely, and for the foreseeable future, maintained its position as the dominant source of information, it no longer holds the monopoly in truth and breadth of coverage.

Bloggers and alternative new media sources have never set out to replace the MSM role and neither has anyone set out to conduct themselves as the pure adversary seeking to undermine the integrity and public confidence in public institutions; although they are often viewed and portrayed as such.

Minister Lui’s comments are not earth shattering as we have always understood the Government’s unease with regards to alternative and unregulated media. But they are nonetheless disappointing and betray a continued unease in dealing with dissident voices.

The fact that they were uttered by the acting - and no doubt future - Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, demonstrate a heavy lack of enlightenment and does not bode well for the maturity of the new media sector in Singapore.

It probably is also timed to forewarn that during the impending general elections, a light touch approach and easily be calibrated into a crushing hammer response in the defense of national interests.

So be warned but don't be fooled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Singapore's mainstream media holds ground as dominant source of info
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 09 September 2009

SINGAPORE: Singapore's mainstream media continues to hold its ground as the dominant source of information, despite developments in the new media scene.

That's the view of Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. He was speaking during a dialogue with members of the Singapore Press Club on Wednesday.

Keeping up with developments in the new media scene is an on-going challenge, especially with websites emerging daily, said Rear-Admiral(NS) Lui.

He said: "I certainly don't have an army to go and ask who all these people are; they use pseudonyms and are largely anonymous, and may they remain that way.

"There were only three occasions when the police had to step in to take action because the racial remarks that were made were so inflammatory that the police had to come in."

Despite the speed with which websites mushroom, RADM(NS) Lui said surveys showed that Singapore's mainstream media remains the preferred choice. In fact, the Nielsen Media Index of 2008 showed that 75% of people polled selected newspapers as their preferred source of news.

RADM(NS) Lui said: "Unlike some foreign newspapers, the media here in Singapore has not gone for aggressive journalism; they have not gone for aggressive campaigning. They have taken the position that they will investigate thoroughly before they publish.

"If there are good grounds for them to take a certain position, which may be detrimental to the interests of an establishment or an institution, they are prepared to do so and they do so from a point of view of responsibility."

But RADM(NS) Lui added that the established media cannot escape the speed and immediacy of the new media.

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.