TR EMERITUS

OPINION

How do you kill a mosquito which simply won’t go away? Well, for many people, their immediate reaction will be to try to hit it, but most of the time, they end up hitting themselves which kill more cells than the mosquito’s prick.

Actually the best way to deal with the problem is to walk away from the place and apply some anti-itch ointment on the bitten site.

Singapore’s ruling PAP has been in a dilemma on how to deal with the rising anti-establishment sentiment in cyberspace.

While the mainstream media which is completely under its control sings its praises regularly like a humming bird, blogosphere is mostly critical of it no matter what it says or does.

The polarizing views between the mainstream and new media is hardly surprising given that there is only one media company in Singapore which is largely pro-government.

Naturally, disgruntled Singaporeans who are unable to have their voices heard in the papers will retreat to find solace with one another in cyberspace thereby becoming the predominant voice.

Socio-political sites have to align themselves with the prevailing sentiment in the online world in order to increase their readership.

Most readers visit such sites for news because they are sick and tired of the daily propaganda being churned out by the state media.

Though the alternative media should cover a wide range of views from across the political spectrum, the lack of a middle ground in Singapore’s political milieu leads to a gradual and inevitable tilting towards the anti-government camp.

Such a scenario is only seen in countries where the media is found wanting in its journalistic independence and freedom like Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and China where bloggers and netizens are virulently anti-establishment.

In countries where the press is relatively free and uncontrolled by the government, the new media is more balanced, objective and mature in its content and approach.

Well known for its remarkably low tolerance for criticism and dissent, the ruling party has been adopting a ”hands-off” approach to cyberspace so far as promised by Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts in contrast to its heavy-handedness in controlling the mainstream media.

When prominent blogger Mr Lee Kin Mun aka Mr Brown breached the the OB markers in his TODAY column, he was unceremoniously removed the next day and given a harsh rebuttal by the Press Secretary for MICA Ms Bhavani.

The drastic move taken by the government to protect its image does not go down well with the young IT-savvy generation. Bloggers and netizens condemned Mr Brown’s treatment and a mini “protest” was even held by 20 or so Singaporeans and foreigners wearing brown T-shirts in support of Mr Brown.

Though MICA has won the battle in silencing Mr Brown, it lost the war. The image of the government which wasn’t that great to begin with, was tarnished with its pettiness, vindictiveness and repressiveness still etched deeply in the minds of many.

There is really no need to use a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. A far more enlightened approach would be to publish a diplomatic reply to Mr Brown’s editorial in a presentable, gentle and congenial manner to point out the factual inaccuracies inherent in it and to clarify the government’s stance.

Instead of exerting pressure on Mediacorp to sack Mr Brown outright and humiliate him publicly thereby creating a ruckus, he should be “counselled” quietly behind closed doors so that he would not repeat his mistake again. Should he remain recalcitrant and unrepentant, he can be removed at a later time without incurring public suspicions.

Such a calibrated response will achieve the same outcome without causing a dent to the image of the government in the eyes of the people, especially the young whose votes it is trying to court.

Likewise, the jailing of blogger Gopalan Nair was an overkill which is instrumental in Singapore’s pathetic media press rankings in 2008 – it was ranked 144th out of 175 countries on the world press freedom index conducted by international media watchdog Reporters without Borders.

There are far better ways to punish Mr Nair without impounding his passport and jailing him. By doing so, it is helping Mr Nair to publicize his rabid anti-Singapore blog to the American audience.

With his passport impounded, the authorities should have plenty of time to “play” around with Mr Nair till he fell on his knees and beg to be let off back to U.S.A where his law firm was at risk of being shut down.

What is the difference between throwing him into jail for three months and calling him for repeated interrogation at the Cantonment Police Complex daily from 8am to 6pm? It will probably save the Prisons Department some extra cash for his food and lodging.

After “detaining” him in Singapore for a few months or even up to a year for the purpose of “investigation, Mr Nair could then be punished with just a fine and allowed to return the U.S. in order to demonstrate the magnanmity and graciousness of the Singapore government.

There are two possible reasons for the harsh punishment meted out on Mr Nair – one, to teach him a lesson he will never forget in his life and two, to serve as a deterrent to other critics from following his example.

Mr Gopalan Nair had been a well-known perennial critic of the Singapore government on his blog – the Singapore Dissident from which he used to take potshots at the PAP leaders.

For such a “diehard” critic, no amount of punishment will suffice to deter him from continuing his attacks on the ruling party as proven after he was released from prison.

Upon reaching his home in Califonia, Mr Nair reneged on his earlier promise as a condition for his release not to repeat the allegations against the Singapore judiciary and continued his attacks as before.

As for the second reason, few other Singaporeans will dare to follow the footsteps of Mr Gopalan Nair and therefore the deterrent effect will be minimal.

With due respect to Mr Nair, he is hardly worth the price to pay for – Singapore’s reputation suffered as a result of his incarceration which made headlines worldwide.

To the American public who are used to the strident, bombastic and fierce type of criticism as exhibited by Mr Nair, his jailing by the Singapore government is both appalling and unbelievable.

No matter how hard Mr Shanmugan had tried to explain and justify Singapore laws to the 200 or so American lawyers from the New York State Bar Association during their meeting in Singapore lately, there are millions of Americans out there who are disappointed and disgusted by the Singapore government’s decision to jail Mr Nair.

An American university may choose not to set up a campus in Singapore as had happened before to Warwick University of U.K. which decided against coming to Singapore due to concerns over freedom of speech.

An American couple may decide to send their children to study mandarin in Hong Kong instead of Singapore because of the perceived repressiveness here. These will represent potential losses for Singapore.

Mr Teo Ser Luck, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development, Youth and Sports, said during a PAP event last week that the PAP is trying to win Singaporeans’ trust and support by tackling perceptions of the party generated in the real world and also, increasingly, online.

He said that before and during a general election, new-media platforms can quickly sway the views of people.

It is obvious that Mr Teo as well as his PAP colleagues are deeply concerned and worried about the possible impact of the new media on the next general election.

The Singapore government is used to setting the boundaries of permitted political discouse and managing the dissemination of information to the public via the Singapore media which was owned largely by government-linked companies.

The Chairman of SPH, the sole print media company in Singapore is Dr Tony Tan, a former PAP deputy prime minister. The only broadcasting company in Singapore, Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings whose Chief Executive Officer is Ms Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The new media represents a wild card which the PAP is not comfortable with especially since the majority of the blogs are staunchly against the establishment.

Of course, the government has a lot of tricks up its sleeves to remove the potential threat faced by the new media in the next elections.

For example, it can introduce laws to prevent bloggers from recording opposition rallies or require socio-political sites to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA).

While it may win the battle for now, such unpopular measures are counter-productive and will cause them to lose the war in the future.

On the home front, it will tarnish their image irreversibly in the eyes of young Singaporeans who are getting increasingly frustrated and peeved at the overwhelming dominance of the ruling party in all aspects of their lives.

It will also provide free ammunitions for international media watchgroups and NGOs to shoot at it, thereby damaging its already sullied reputation further.

Is there a need to use a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito like in this instance? The government’s move must commensurate with the level of threat. Singapore’s new media will never have an impact on the results of the next general election based on its present infantile stage of development.

The Malaysian political tsunami of 2008 which was partly triggered by the new media will not be coming to Singapore’s shore any time soon.

Find out why in Part 2 of our article.

10 Responses to “PAP’s new media blues (Part 1): Using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito”