The recent announcement by the People's Action Party (PAP) that it has assembled a "new media capabilities group" to "counter" its critics online was heavily criticized by prominent bloggers. Some have pointed out the hypocrisy of the autonomous postings that will be done by these YPAP members. Others argue that it is unethical for them to do so.
However, should not bloggers welcome these interactions from the Young PAP members?
First, this clearly shows that the PAP is willing to engage with the blogsphere and not control it. This in itself should be seen as a significant gesture by the party to engage, rather than fix; to counter, rather than charge. This is why I am greatly heartened by the setting up of the P-65 blog and Foreign Minister George Yeo's blog. Whether we agree with them or not is one thing, but this clearly sends a signal that the PAP is becoming a fair-minded party when it comes to appreciating diverse views and interests online.
Second, the more important charge by bloggers opposing such moves by the PAP is the notion that moderate and fair bloggers will be undermined by such engagements by the PAP. That is, any person not sprouting "anti-establishment" views (this in itself is a vague terminology) will be suspected therefore for being pro-PAP. This will cause moderate bloggers to be more extreme in order not to be suspected as such and for anti-establishment bloggers to take more extreme views.
My take is that credible bloggers on the whole look at arguments rather than personality in responding to comments. If your opinions are well reasoned and interesting, I will not decry you simply because you are a party member. Similarly, if you are affiliated with the opposition parties, it does not mean that all your arguments are solid if they are not backed with good evidences.
In addition, it does not mean because you have an agenda, your speech and opinions are not valuable and that you will not change their own political views. If you prove completely disagreeable and totally not interested in listening to other people, it is obvious that most people would not bother to engage you after a while. But most people do change and listen, especially when they are exposed to different opinions. The larger question that one has in mind then is "Can partisan politicians, which tend to represent the epitome of agenda and ideology in a society, change their views when they engage with their alternatives?" Toh Chin Chye, Devan Nair, Chia Ti Lik and many others have changed their opinions over time and space.
My only concern is that these anonymous individuals might conduct "entrapment" exercises in the blogsphere. There is a possibly that they could induce bloggers to speak on issues or lead them down the path that might be construe as seditious or problematic. Time will tell whether such exercises will be conducted but I am inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt. If not, I am sure that bloggers will give them a hard time on their blogs.
We should not be afraid of political diversity. Engaging our critics, persuading them to our point of view and creating more forums for political discussions thus making the blogsphere more exciting, credible and pluralistic can only be good for the maturity of Singapore's politics. If we believe that more Singaporeans will become more informed through our blogging, shouldn't we be convinced that PAP members will also be similarly more informed too if they engage with the blogsphere?
Comments (4)
Actually the setting up of the new media capabilities group by the PAP set me thinking why there seem to be more anti-establishment viewpoints in the Singapore blogsphere then pro-establishment viewpoints.
For example, do anyone know any independent pro-establishment blogs that are popularly read and followed?
A few hypothesis:
1. Is it because the mainstream media is perceived as too pro-establishment that the members of the Singapore blogsphere tend to act as a counter balance? For example, it may not be that interesting to write about what is already written in ST Online.
2. Are most of the internet-savvy politically aware and concerned Singaporeans more anti-establishment in general, while the pro-establishment Singaporeans are less interested in rebutting some of the anti-establishment claims within the blogsphere? Why is that so?
3. Assuming the Singaporean bloggers are younger in age, are the more politically aware and concerned youth more anti-establishment? Is it just an issue of age? As someone grows older and have families, will they tend to be more pro-establishment?
Anyways, lots of questions, and any insights will be interesting.
Posted by Sze Meng | February 4, 2007 12:26 PM
Wayne: I think Singaporeans online aren't annoyed that the PAP is engaging critics online. What they're disapproving of is that the PAP is doing so anonymously. Your point about possible entrapment touches on this somewhat.
Posted by strangeknight | February 4, 2007 9:17 PM
Good point made on the possible entrapment.
However, I have to point out that posting anonymously does not make the PAP seem like they are truly interested in engaging the bloggers.
It seems more likely that they are interested to just defend their views. If they are truly interested in engaging the community, they should not hide their true identities. This way, there can be healthy and above board debates.
Posted by john doe | February 5, 2007 12:18 AM
Szemeng:
Two good pro-establishment blogs that have decent following are Ephraim Loy's Blog as well as Singaporegovt.blogspot.com. However, it is quite true that as you point out, there are more anti-establishment blogs out there.
I think yet another reason for the lack of pro-establishment blogs boils down to writer's psychology. Some people might ask: What is the incentive to write pro-government posts? Will such posts add value to what the mainstream media have talked about? Why should I write if there's no point writing?
Strange Knight and John Doe:
Thanks for your comments. I think is one's rights to remain anonymous (anon) or not, but to me is more of a one-dimensional issue. I brought out the issue of entrapment as one possible spin-off of anonymity. Another issue is that of security (I feel more safe being anon). Yet, another notion of anonymity is the issue of credibility.
Some people question the credibility of anon bloggers such as Mr Wang and some of the contributors on this group blog too. Others too question the credibility of the PAP's "insurgents" when they remain anon.
I think credibility works on different planes for different people. I am more interested in the message and content of comments. I do not think that an healthy and above-the board debate is mutually exclusive with the anon status of bloggers. And don't forget, often, the typology of comments can also to some extent, reflect the intent and agenda of the person too. And often, as many bloggers have pointed out, for anon commentators to gain credibility, they also use consistent pseudonyms too. We still do not know whether these PAP writers will be anon but yet adopt pseudonyms. Don't you agree, "John Doe?" =)
To others, they want to know whether the person (commentators) behind the comments have the relevant credibility and expertise to sprout his statements. I respect their opinions but I don't think life in Singapore is so clear-cut after all.
Cheers!
Posted by Wayne | February 5, 2007 5:26 AM