By John Ang / Citizen reporter
10th JANUARY — THE People’s Association Youth Movement (PAYM) held a policy forum entitled “New Media – A Boon or Bane?” at the Glass Hall of the Singapore Art Museum last Saturday.
Three panelists were invited — Mr Cheong Yip Seng, Chairman of AIMS, Ms Irene Ng, MP of Tampines GRC and guest-of-honour for the event, and Mr Poh Yang Cheng, manager of TOUCH Cyber Wellness and Sports.
About 50 people attended the event.
Ms Ng said during the forum that “[new media] is a timely topic to be discussed due to the government’s response on the recommendations of AIMS,” stating that new ground is being broken with people exchanging opinions on the Internet and with political discourse and videos becoming more commonplace.
Mr Cheong also commented that the new media can no longer be ignored as an empowering force, citing the 2008 Malaysian Elections where the new media played a big role in causing the ruling party to lose votes.
Three topics were discussed at the forum. They were: New Media and Politics, New Media and Ethics, and New Media and Community. The participants were split into different groups to discuss the various topics.
New Media and politics
The general concensus put forward by the participants of the forum was that New Media has extended the frontiers by which people discuss and become involved in political discourse.
One group stated that “youths must learn to use new media responsibly” in their discourse and interactions, and it was also agreed that that new media has allowed political leaders to talk to their constituents directly, for example, Minister for Foreign Affairs George’s Yeo’s blog and his facebook account, which has allowed him to interact “face-to-face” with the average citizen.
Several questions were also asked about the amended film act, regarding how practical the independent panel for vetting films would be in the case of time-critical videos, such as newscasts, and why a minister should possess the power to ban a film outright.
Ms Ng, in response to the queries, agreed that the panel has to work swifly, and that she would raise the issue at the next session in parliament on how to deal with time-critical films.
It was also clarified that the minister possesses the power in order to ban films that are clearly against public interest, like the “fitna” video immediately, instead of it having to go through the board.
Ms Ng also enouraged people to be more proactive in their political discourse, and utilise platforms such as REACH to have their voices heard, reiterating that all feedback is taken very seriously.
New Media, ethics and family
The groups discussing New Media and Ethics agreed that the imposition of restrictions and the setting of rules should fall on the community, not the government.
In addition, the groups also came to the conclusion that more faith should be put in the youth because they are intelligen. Values such as critical thinking and practical intelligence should be cultivated by giving youths the choice to make informed decisions instead of being coerced into one particular one.
Mr Poh agreed, but stated that there is still a need to teach “six and seven-year-olds” the basics of Internet safety. He also commented that “new media may have eroded the capacity of parents to bring up their children” and that ways must be found to “restore the parents to make them able to engage their kids,” adding that “it’s not preparing the road for the child, but the child for the road.”
The general feeling that the groups came to was that while new media could drive a wedge between families and widen the generation gap, it could also serve as a way to help bring distant people closer together.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Hi John,
Good article. Thanks for the report.
There is a lot of talk about New Media in recent times. Unfortunately, New Media does not have the ability to reach those who are not internet savvy. Is the govt spending too much time and resources trying to win over votes in cyberspace? This might backfire if it spends all its time in cyberspace.
Since there is mention of George Yeo, I would like to take him as an example. Since he started his own blog, how many of us have seen him in public? Attempting to connect with one group might result in the alienation of another group. How to address this?
The other issue with New Media (PAP style) is to have netizens coming aboard its platform and play by its rules. This is no way to connect, and they know it will not work, just like its numerous blogs and websites, which have failed to live up to their purposes.
If they are serious about engaging netizens and tapping on the ideas offered in cyberspace, it has to make the effort and pump in resources to genuinely go to these alternative blogs and websites to engage netizens there.
Anything less than this is just smokescreen and a futile attempt to connect with the real world and with real people, from the common race.
“all feedback is taken very seriously”
We have heard of this quite often but we know better.
Why must use REACH?
I’d like to comment on George Yeo’s facebook site. It is a nice facebook entry and it is good he’s giving people insights into his activities, either personal, political (various meet the people sessions) or professional (his experiences as foreign minister).
He does not, however, “interact ‘face-to-face’ with the average citizen” as suggested in the forum. You can see it in his entries. On occasion, he would thank people for their comments. For the most part, he keeps quiet and would never comment on policy, even when people prod him on the wall. The biggest outburst I’ve seen from him was when he got really upset about the milk scandal in China.
This is totally understandable, given the PAP’s policies on freedom of expression by its members. They just do not wish to do any damage control from an unintended gaffe (my current opinion of George Yeo is that he’s probably wise enough not to).
On the whole, I like his facebook entry as it is. It is not what I had hoped (a way for him to engage the public on issues and his thoughts) but given what Singapore politics is, I was more pleasantly surprised than disappointed (just look at how horrible Vivian Balakrishnan’s facebook entry is). The only other thing that annoyed me about George Yeo’s facebook is the number of fawning hero-worshipers who post (imho) stupid and irrelevant comments on his wall (e.g. sarcastically paraphrased by me – “Wow, how is it like being a minister?” “Wow, you must really be great being able to do all that in your oh-so-busy schedule!”). Give me a break! The man took a short break to go fishing with friends …
Gemami #2 – it is probably true George Yeo’s not been on the public spotlight, but let us be fair to him – I don’t think he wants too much of it … just look at Lim Swee Say and Lee Hsien Loong … every time they show up, they have to entertain us with gaffes.
Also, to be fair, it does not mean he is neglecting his constituents. His facebook frequently mentions walkabouts and meet-the-people sessions in between his duties flying around the world as foreign minister.
It looks more to me like he’s actually doing his job, unlike some of the other ministers.
Hi #5) Lee Chee Wai,
Thanks for the piece of information about GY, and I will humbly apologise if I am mistaken about him.
Having said that, I must point out that I only used him as an example because his name was mentioned in the article above; and; I was using him to illustrate my point that, if the ruling PAP is not careful, and, if they spend too much attention in cyberspace, and, in the process, neglect its duty towards the other segment of society that are not internet savvy, then this problem can only do further damage to its relationship with the citizens, more than it already is.
The PAP’s mantra has always been that its members must not only do their duties, but, must be seen doing them. This applies here.
Gemami #6 – yah, that’s a very true possibility. The PAP has often gone overboard with things.
For me, personally, I’ll reserve judgement until I see the p65 facebook stuff. I’ve so far not been impressed with Vivian’s. I’ve also not been particularly impressed with any of the p65 group’s blog. Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr. Baey seem to be the only guys trying to deal with actual issues and even so, Dr Lam’s responses to people (“real” people like Mr Andrew Loh … there’s a bunch of regular flamers who comment on their site just to try and piss them off) feels somewhat “off” (to be exact, feels a tad too politically correct for my tastes).
#7) Lee Chee Wai,
Absolutely. This is one reason why I feel that the PAP’s cyber-activity will not be able to produce the results it has set for itself. There is an over-indulgence by their own to be politically correct first, and then to address the issues second.
I have commented, and am monitoring its other feedback platform, Reach, because the promise there is that all comments will be followed up upon, but so far, I see posts that have been posted there for weeks on ends, but have yet to receive the promised replies. Yet, in the mainstream print press, it continues to harp on its ability to connect and address the common man’s problems and feedback.
People are slowing coming to the realisation that these are all but a show, and a vain attempt, to convince that this govt really cares.
New media surely kaput and die of natural death.
Lky pap tries many a times to reach out but fail – only to find many ‘hero worshipers.
This time lky pap tried again in cyberspace – I think this time, lky pap will even kena criticise lagi holo2 until they ‘tak boleh tahan’ and call us anti-establishment and falsehood facts.
Look around and soon you would agree.They are also very weak in responding critics from Great Singaporeans.
Mia and awol in constituencies is one reason that lky pap is weak in door to door visit meeting every constituents.Dare not or got no time to visit each doors.Another real handicap for the lky pap.
Wah, terok man this time for lky pap.
Elect good credible Opposition to be full time MP then. Solve the problem once and for all, my dear Great Singaporeans.
FULL TIME OPPOSITION MP, YES WE WANT,
tokselehon.
Does anyone know the impact of blogging on private institutions and comapnes?
Is it destructive and how can it be constructive??
Good to see this written by you . John ! I sat on the same table with you, Remember . Hey when you go to the States, go witness American politics and see for yourself whether you like it over there and nvr come back as u implied. Ieave it up to you to see for yourself. We could use you as a on-site American correspondent for OnlineCitizen along with Editor Choo both to NYU
New Media- Blogging can bring down Governments, Private and Public Institutions and Companies. Surely there must be laws good enough to ensure stability instead of chaos…in time to come. …maybe sooner than you think
tokselehon
You put “lky” in front of “PAP”.
Are you implying that there are other PAP factions?
Hello.
The interesting name of a site – theonlinecitizen.com, interesting this here is very good.
I spent 2 hours searching in the network, until find your forum!