The guest writer, J D Toh can be contacted by this email address.
When I read the ST report that PAP was "mounting a counter-insurgency against its online critics" anonymously, my first thought was - why? Why do it? Why the need to be anonymous? And why announce it (I seriously doubt the news was "leaked")?
Why the need for such action? The PAP has long enjoyed monopoly over media channels and the Internet is probably an itch it just couldn't scratch. Its recent efforts to "manage" this medium have thus far been somewhat failure. A casual browse through current Internet discussions would show that the PAP is not exactly the most popular kid in town. The party has already targeted the winning over of young Singaporeans as its main priority over the next 5 years. So it cannot ignore the Internet, the current
playground for the young.
But why do it anonymously? Weren't PAP the ones who insisted that those who hide behind a pseudonym are not credible and thus to be dismissed? I suspect their hands are tied on this. Frankly, PAP party members are flame baits online. It doesn't matter what they say, they will either be ignored (see P65) or be eventually beaten down by the boo boys (Sammyboy players will attest to that). PAP must have realised this by now. Something must be done, and the only way to do it effectively is to hide behind a pseudonym.
Which leads us to the last question - why jeopardize your success by announcing to the world your plan? To find out why, it would be useful to know the main objective of the initiative. Lets not kid ourselves, this isn't a Government action, it's a Party action (read the first few words of the report again) and so the beneficiary of this action is the PAP. The main priority of a political party is Survival. Announcing the plan allows PAP to not stray too far from this objective whatever the outcome. There are only 2 possible unique outcomes to any initiative - a success or a failure.
A successful "counter-insurgency" initiative will reap the obvious reward - positive political equity. What about a failure? Like a general that poisons a river beforehand in case it is lost to the enemy, PAP has cast the seeds of doubt and mistrust by tarnishing everyone writing under a pseudonym. This has the potential to stunt the growth of a vibrant alternative media online, in case the PAP has to retreat in failure and resort back to denouncing the Internet as not credible.
The die is cast. How shall we play it?
Comments (3)
"Frankly, PAP party members are flame baits online. It doesn't matter what they say, they will either be ignored (see P65) or be eventually beaten down by the boo boys (Sammyboy players will attest to that). PAP must have realised this by now. Something must be done, and the only way to do it effectively is to hide behind a pseudonym."
The online response is simply mirroring how PAP is treating its critics and dissenters in the real world. Is that too difficult for PAP to understand? Of course not. They have hegemony in the real world, after GE2006 they felt threatened and now want online domination too. It is never their intention to convince or engage, they simply want to brow beat you into submission.
Posted by the message | February 7, 2007 10:04 AM
It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Posted by Azmodeus | February 7, 2007 1:26 PM
You are probably not too far off the mark in guessing their intentions, although I believe subtlety would be their preferred (hence their intent on anonymity) and more appropriate tactic in this matter. Whatever the intentions, I think what matters more is how we can engage them. Funny now who is engaging who.
Posted by JDTOH | February 8, 2007 10:04 AM