By Cherian George
Lee Hsien Loong
has called for online spaces where Singaporeans and the government
can engage in more balanced, open and rational debate on issues. In
the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech, he noted the
prevalence of "cowboy towns" in cyberspace, circulating "ridiculous
untruths".
"But there must be
places… where people recognise … are reliable, where you can have a
open debate, where different views are expressed, but it's
balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off
with you can assume that it will make some sense," he said.
He did not say how
such spaces could form, or whether the government intended to
create or facilitate such sites. Until recently, it has been
pushing its official feedback portal, REACH, as the best place for
citizens to engage the government. Last night, however, Lee made no
mention of REACH, perhaps acknowledging that no official site can
counteract the anti-government storm in cyberspace.
Mainstream news
organisations should have a better chance at creating neutral,
moderated forums. They start off with significant advantages,
including the largest audience base and the resources to manage
such sites professionally. But their success at creating credible
online discussion platforms will depend on how much freedom they
are granted by the government. Netizens are not likely to forget
how Today axed Mr Brown as a
columnist after the government voiced its displeasure at
one of his pieces.
The most effective
solution would be bottom-up projects, created independently by
established bloggers with street-cred. Could Singapore's
socio-political bloggers, for so long seen as a thorn in the
government's side, be the answer to the PM's prayers?
The idea is not as
far-fetched as it may seem. Privately, several independent bloggers
have voiced unease at the ugly mob behaviour that swamped
cyberspace during the general election. The experience has sparked
internal discussions about how best to manage readers' comments, in
particular, since that's where irrationality has run riot.
There are also
established bloggers who are no longer content to converse only
among the converted. They want to widen the online debate so that
it does not attract only anti-government voices. (I've made a
similar point in an earlier piece.)
Don't be
surprised, therefore, if you see some of Singapore's influential
independent bloggers creating new platforms for national debate in
the coming months, either by developing new websites or by
reorienting their existing ones.
But even if they
build them, will government sympathisers and spokesmen come? One
thing that will have to change is the PAP's politics of
intolerance, which has contributed to the polarisation of debate in
Singapore. Its "with-us-or-against-us"
philosophy has kept establishment types away from
pluralistic spaces. (The classic illustration was the PAP's refusal
to take part in The Online Citizen's multi-party
forum before the general election.)
For example, the
typical establishment individual would probably refuse to
contribute an article to an independent medium that also carries
opposition party voices. In Singapore's political culture, he would
assume that any such medium would be blacklisted by people at the
top, and that anyone who cooperates with it would be guilty by
association. Or, perhaps it is simply that most establishment
spokesmen lack the confidence to engage in debate on a truly level
playing field.
So allergic has
the establishment been to bloggers that, as recently as 2009,
public universities were compelled to distance themselves from
a workshop organised to promote responsible
blogging, originally planned with their support.
Thus, PM Lee's
wish for open, balanced and reasonable online spaces requires a
cultural change on the part of the establishment as well. The
government will need to find within itself the capacity to respect
the role of independent websites as convenors of Singapore's online
politics.
Unedited transcript from PM's National Day
Rally speech:
Engagement online,
I think we need to learn to do it better. It's not easy to do, but
it's important because the digital media is continuing to grow in
importance. Five years ago, Youtube was insignificant. Facebook
didn't exist. All you had was Mr Brown. Today, Mr Brown has a lot
of competition. We in government have a lot of competition, and we
have to be able to operate in that space.
It's not easy
because it's anonymous, it's chaotic, it's unfiltered, unmoderated,
and so the medium lends itself to many negative views and
ridiculous untruths. Any number of them. I won't repeat one because
otherwise you may misunderstand and think it's true. But if you
just open at random you will see them.
And we have to do
our best to counter this, to prevent untruths from circulating and
being repeated 5, 10, 20 times, from leading people astray, and
after a while, you've heard it so often, you can't remember where
you saw it, but it must be true; but it's not.
So our ministers
have to get better at this and you know many ministers are blogging
now, Facebook; and they have to communicate in a different medium,
and convey nuance policy, intentions, explanations, in a more
personal way, engaging people. But it's not just the ministers, the
government as a whole has to be more active and adept, engaging
Singaporeans online.
We can't be in
every corner of cyberspace because there are a lot of cowboy towns
out there. But there must be places which grow where people
recognise that these are places which are reliable, where you can
have a open debate, where different views are expressed, but it's
balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off
with you can assume that it will make some sense. Whether it's
right or wrong, we have to consider but it's not rubbish.
So we've got to
get there, be in cyberspace and use it constructively to explain
issues, to shape opinions, to rally support, and to make Singapore
work better.