The "negative" internet

From Mr Wang

---

An interesting little article in the TODAY newspaper, about a PAP MP's fears about the Internet.

PAP must address 'negative Internet'
TODAY Newspaper
Wednesday • May 24, 2006

SHE was a new face representing the People's Action Party, but when Ms Denise Phua surfed the Internet during the recent General Election, the tone of the postings stunned her.

They were overwhelmingly slanted against the ruling party.

"I know that something has gone wrong when more than 85 per cent (of the traffic) writes negatively about the PAP," she said at a post-mortem of the GE organised last night by the National University of Singapore Society.

Looking at this matter from the PAP perspective, Mr Wang has to agree with Denise's view. Something has gone wrong. The question is - what? Here are two possible ways of looking at it:

1. The PAP has indeed gone wrong in several ways. The negative content of the majority of Singaporeans' views, as expressed on the Internet, reflect this. Their views can serve as valuable feedback to the PAP.

2. The majority of Singaporeans who express opinions on the Internet have gone wrong in several ways. The negative content of their views shows that they are misguided, confused, stupid, dangerous and/or seditious. The right, sensible thing to do is to trust the PAP.

One point to note is that the Internet is accessible to everyone, regardless of his political inclinations. If you are pro-PAP, you can hop onto the Internet and write pro-PAP comments. If you are anti-PAP, you can also hop onto the Internet and write your anti-PAP comments (albeit with slightly higher risks of being monitored, prosecuted or sued for defamation).

No one forces anyone to say any particular thing on the Internet. Thus what people say on the Internet tends to be what they really think - that is, they're expressing their honest personal views. It's truly the masses' media.

Since the views that Singaporeans express on the Internet are their honest personal views, the PAP, acting sensibly, would probably want to give consideration to those views (the pro-PAP ones as well as the anti-PAP ones). Not to say that the PAP must agree with all of these views, but at the least, the PAP could get some quick, instant insights about what Singaporeans, or the Internet generation of Singaporeans, honestly think and feel about them.

Alas, this won't happen. Why?

In my opinion, the answer is reflected somewhere in the next statement by Denise Phua:

"This is something that the PAP would do well to take into account ... and to manage this channel of communication," she added.

This innocuous-looking statement, as I see it, reveals something quite fundamental about the PAP mindset towards the Internet. You see, they don't really care about the content of, and the ideas behind, your views. You can write about the moral wrongness of lift upgrading threats; the need for alternative views in Parliament; your concerns about healthcare etc. But your views in themselves, even if very logical, convincing and well-reasoned, are of little or no interest to the PAP. In other words, your views as an individual Singaporean just don't matter.

What the PAP is really concerned about is that many other Singaporeans may read your anti-PAP views and may, horror of horrors, actually be persuaded or convinced by your arguments.

Now, now. That can't be permitted, can it? That's why Denise says that the PAP must "manage this channel of communication". To investigate what that might really mean, let's try to paraphrase that. How about this:

"The PAP must try to exert some influence or control over the honest, personal views that Singaporeans are communicating to other Singaporeans on political matters via the Internet." [Mr Wang's paraphrase]

Scary, isn't it.

Let's look at the next part of the article:

Ms Phua stressed that she was not dismissing the views posted on the Internet nor even disagreeing with them. Her concern was more that the coverage was not balanced.

This is pretty interesting because Denise Phua expects "balance" from Singaporeans on the Internet. It's as if all the thousands of Singaporeans who've ever posted anything about politics on the Internet are actually employees of some media company, which has or can issue some editorial policy to the effect that:

"Political opinions, as expressed on the Internet, shall be balanced. All articles shall first be vetted by our SPH-approved editors."

Dear Denise, that's not how it works. As I said, just about anyone can get on the Internet and express his personal, honest view. The view may or may not be "balanced" - it may, for example, turn out to be extremely, extremely pro-PAP, or it could turn out to be extremely, extremely anti-PAP. But the view will be honest.

That's because unlike politicians, anonymous people on the Internet have no compelling reason to lie about their real views and opinions.

If 50% of Singaporeans on the Internet are pro-PAP, and 50% of the Singaporeans on the Internet are equally anti-PAP, then you get "balance" as a whole, on the Internet. That's good and well.

But if 85% of Singaporeans on the Internet are anti-PAP, and only 15% are pro-PAP, then of course there won't be "balance". After all, 85% of Singaporeans on the Internet think you suck.

To me, the sensible thing for you to do is then to consider why they think you suck, and how you can improve yourself. Rather than think about how to "manage their channel of communication".

Next:

Nowhere, for example, was it mentioned that this particular GE was not a snap poll or that the Opposition had the freedom to hold rallies of its own.

Obviously Denise doesn't read my blog. On the snap poll point, I had mentioned on this blog:

Election signals have been in the air for some time, so the opposition has no excuses to say that it didn't have time to prepare.

The more disturbing point is that Denise actually considers it noteworthy that this particular GE was not a snap poll or that the Opposition actually had the chance to hold rallies.

Errrrr, Denise, we ARE supposed to be a democracy, you know. Do you think that bloggers are also to be faulted for not pointing out that Singapore actually had polling stations ... and Opposition parties were permitted to put up posters ... and Singaporean women also get to vote ... and no one was killed or received death threats during the elections ... and enough polling tickets were printed ... and Opposition candidates DID appear on TV?

Denise, don't point accusing fingers at bloggers for not writing about non-events. What would have been VERY blogworthy is if this election WAS a snap poll, or if the Opposition was NOT allowed to hold rallies. That didn't happen, so of course no one really bothered to blog about it.

---

Some notable comments by the readers:

yes the 140th media painted a very mild scenario of what took place. The media did not get their facts wrong, but they refused to interpret and comment on what they saw last night. So what you get is a very 1st class bland report.

Other than the precision bombing on denise, the media itself came under heavy fire from panelists and floor speakers alike. The moderator, chandra mohan, tried several times to tip the balance a little by inviting the media present (anyone) to explain their side of the story or at least the chance to counter and right of reply. Of coz the silence from the media is deafening, they simply refused to come to the aid of their distressed comrade. So the onslaught continues unabated. Muahaha!
# posted by recruit ong : Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:01:50 PM

-

It's surprising what mental gymnastics one can go through in order to protect one's position.

The statement that opposition members are "troublemakers" is a prime example of this.

Once in power, all sorts of justifications come out why we need to do this and that because this is a threat to us.

As Chiam said with a shy smile, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Chiam also said that the PAP would see a lesser percentage of support now, with our more sophisticated society and I must agree with him.

When a PAP member speaks like that, about controlling this and that, it shows a lot about that person, either in terms of their intelligence(making an unpopular gaffe so easily)or their character.

It's fortunate that not all PAP MPs are like that.

Flosduellatorum
# posted by Anonymous : Thursday, May 25, 2006 2:05:03 AM

-

Instead of wasting time and taxpayers' money managing these views, how about putting heart and soul into listening to these views and treating them as valuable feedback to find out more about Singaporeans hardships and come up with policies to improve our lifes.

If she wants to impress the higher-ups, that is ok by me but if she really thinks this is something which the government should do, then that could be a serious mistake. She has not gone over to read Chinese blogs and see how active the bloggers scene in China is.

A democratic Singapore is even worse than a communist China and has no tolerance for negative views. Thumbs down..
# posted by Marcus : Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:37:00 PM

-

heheh i was at the forum, she got thoroughly roasted during the question and answer sessions from the floor. After a while she just kind of sat back, dunno inside whether switched off anot. She is too brainwashed to ever see things beyond hers and her party's narrow perspective.
# posted by recruit ong : Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:19:34 PM

PAP 'to manage political expression on internet' shocker!

More in Yawning Bread

"I know that something has gone wrong when more than 85 per cent (of the traffic) writes negatively about the PAP," she said at a post-mortem of the GE organised last night by the National University of Singapore Society.

"This is something that the PAP would do well to take into account ... and to manage this channel of communication,"

.....

One member of the audience pointed out that if the Internet was skewed in one direction then, surely, the local media had gone in the other direction, giving far more coverage to the ruling party.

Perhaps, rebutted Ms Phua, this was on account of the fact that the PAP had fielded far more candidates in the GE than the Opposition ­ and the coverage was a reflection of that.

---

I just wonder how in fact that the PAP can have disproportionately higher coverage 'because it has fielded far mor candidates' when the whole contest was 37 PAP vs 37 opposition? Oh well, you wanna manage the internet? Let's see how are you gonna do it. If the communist party in China can't even fully control it, what makes you think you have half the chance.

A parody on Christian groups and Da Vinci

A super dilemma
The new Superman movie must be banned at any cost!

AS a parent of three, I am increasingly concerned about the spate of movies coming our way that may influence our kids.
.
Take for instance this upcoming movie, which is fiction masquerading as fact, about a baby from a faraway place who comes to earth, and grows up possessing supernatural powers that he uses to save the world.
.
Yes, of course, I am talking about the new Superman movie, Superman Returns. I think we should ban this movie. At the very least, try to get an NC16 rating for it.
.
Young, impressionable minds may watch this "work of fiction" and believe that Superman actually exists! Then we will have to deal with an epidemic of young people who think they too can fly! Or worse, think they should walk around wearing their underwear outside! Think of how this will rend the very fabric of society.
.
I suggest that all parents gather to fight this menace, firstly, by confiscating all the red underwear from their children's wardrobe.
.
Secondly, burn any blankets or towels that can be used as a cape.
.
Thirdly, change all your bunk beds to single deckers. That way if your 16-year-olds try to fly, they will have a shorter distance to fall.
.
Some of you may say, but the Superman comic and the movie are just works of fiction! Ah, but beneath that comic is an organisation bent on attacking our beliefs and morals! Using pop culture, they hope to make us believe untruthful things such as in people who come from other planets, in super-beings who can fly, and that wearing glasses can disguise you from your loved ones.
.
You may think we are over-reacting. You may be thinking, please lah, the truth about man not being able to fly unassisted has survived thousands of years. Many have tried to prove otherwise, but failed.
.
You may be thinking: "Why, I even heard some people were martyred and fed to lions in order to force them to renounce their belief that man cannot fly. That man cannot fly is a Fortress of Truth that has withstood the winds of time and history. So, why the fuss over a movie?"
.
I tell you why. Because Superman is a very attractive hero to kids, and even some adults, are likely to believe him. So, I have taken the liberty of organising a Parents Against Superman Teaching Obscene Reasoning. Together we can lobby the authorities to ban all things that go against our beliefs.
.
As part of our efforts to debunk any untruths that the Superman movie may teach our kids, we will be organising seminars that demonise the creator of the character, dig up dirt on him and call him names. We will also be teaching all members of our group the right things to say, or think, when confronted with questions about Superman.
.
"But who made this comic book and a movie into a Bible on science and flight?" I hear you ask. You may think this is a work of fiction, or pop culture. But I tell you, when an unsuspecting person who knows little about science reads this comic and watches this movie, he will be more likely to believe the falsehoods there. Before you know it, he will start believing: "Yes, man really can leap over buildings in a single bound." When in truth, it takes many bounds to leap over a building.
.
"Surely, by creating a fuss over this movie, we are giving it more credence or publicity than it deserves?" you ask.
.
We don't care. It is the principle of the whole thing. We must stand firm against the tyranny of this evil. Even if it helps the creators make more money from the publicity. Say no to red underwear and men in tights!
.
"But if people watch the Superman movie, maybe they will get interested in science and ask questions and actually investigate the theories of flight and other fascinating aspects of physics?" you ask. We cannot risk this. They may get brainwashed! So, we tell everyone not to watch it. It is safer that way. "But I heard some people say the movie and even the book is not very good to begin with. Won't your actions just make them look credible?"
.
Surely not. I think it will make them look even more untrue, and then people will stop reading this trash and believing silly things. We must remove and ban stuff that is wrong, so that we don't have people doing dangerous things such as thinking for themselves, investigating facts and discovering the world of research. They may learn the wrong things, then how?
.
So rally behind me, and fight this blight upon our culture. We must protect our children from wrongful flight and swollen heads. Let us be the kryptonite to the Superman movie. And when we are successful with that, let us start on the next movie, X-Men 3. How can people be taught that a mutant race is possible? Ban that one next!
.
mr brown is the accidental author of a popular website that has been documenting the dysfunctional side of Singapore life since 1997. He thinks Batman is a better superhero.
The new Superman movie must be banned at any cost!

---

Note the sarcasm in the first 2 paragraphs:

AS a parent of three, I am increasingly concerned about the spate of movies coming our way that may influence our kids.

Take for instance this upcoming movie, which is fiction masquerading as fact, about a baby from a faraway place who comes to earth, and grows up possessing supernatural powers that he uses to save the world....

And also this:

So, I have taken the liberty of organising a Parents Against Superman Teaching Obscene Reasoning. (KH: Shorten it and you get PASTOR)

haha...