Report by Koh Yina and Teng Jing Wei / Pictures and slideshow by Boris Chan
“People with opinions have always expressed their thoughts, but now, with the new media, they can bring it to a bigger audience,” said Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, chair of the seminar on the political blogosphere in Singapore, held at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Titled, “Getting Their Hands Dirty: Recent Developments in Singapore’s Political Blogosphere”, it was held at the National University of Singapore’s Bukit Timah Campus on March 4. Tan Tarn How, Senior Research Fellow and Research Assistant Tan Simin presented their paper on trends observed in the blogosphere.
The audience of 40 included a mix of online practitioners and offline policy makers and analysts. Among the more notable audience from the “offline world” was K Bhavani, Director of Public Communications, Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica). Also in attendance were Straits Times political desk editor Chua Lee Hoong, Terence Chong from the Regional Social and Cultural Studies Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and academics such as Dr Cherian George and Dr James Gomez.
“Comment is free, but facts are sacred”
In his presentation, Tan traced the background of new media, dividing its history into three significant sections.
The small number of blogs during the new media’s humble beginnings in the 1990s reflected technical difficulties. In 2005, the appearance of YouTube and integration of mobile phone technology with the Internet represented milestones that transformed the blogging landscape. Mr Tan remarked that “there was an explosion within two years” where the element of news reporting was incorporated into online blogs during the 2006 General Election.
The latest phase of development is now seeing the rise of blogs such as The Enquirer, Singapore Enquirer, Wayang Party and The Online Citizen as examples, which he termed “online newspapers”, working to create original content online.
The generation of new facts and original news was “a quanlitative leap” from what used to be commentaries on news by the mainstream media. This came in the form of on-the-ground, heartland interviews, as well as the progress made in journalistic habits such as corroborating with third parties or seeking secondary sources of information.
The researchers noted three main features of this development: firstly, the emergence of more frequent reporting, in the form of original event coverage, angles and perspectives; secondly, a sustained engagement with issues and concerns; and finally, the transition from online commentary to offline activism that was characterized as breaching the “online-offline firewall”.
Highlighting the interplay between activism and reporting, the researches cited TOC’s Jurong GRC by-election survey and public transport protest, as well as the Wayang Party Club’s investigation of MP Charles Chong’s “lesser mortals” comment as examples of where new media directly engaged in the offline political agenda.
Limitations
Several limitations of the local political blogosphere were also identifed. Most crucially, the researchers felt that the online-offline firewall, while somewhat alleviated by offline engagement and activism, still poses a daunting task to blogs in their effort to publicise their portals and reach out to more Singaporeans. The existence of this “disposessed political voice outside the political sphere” was highlighted by Ms Tan in her discusion of the “echo chamber effect”, where similar opinions and mindsets are often seen bouncing off each other on the Internet, without expanding to engage people with different perspectives in the discourse.
Although Mr Tan noted that the quality of some of TOC’s news reports “sometimes reads better than the Straits Times”, he highlighted that the lack of professionalism in the blogosphere would inhibit its growth. By this he meant that online news reporting lacked full time staffing, unlike the mainstream media. The fact that most bloggers maintained their sites as part-time occupations thus means that a critical mass is lacking on the part of site administrators and writers.
Q&A
During the Question and Answer session, discussion started off with the political blogosphere’s professionalism and the survivability of online media.
Blogger Gabriel Seah elaborated on the limitations faced by the online media, such as the “lack of contacts or networking, [and the lack of] credible journalistic skills”. He further added that “the difficulties of on-the-ground reporting, no invitations to grand events” made it “not possible to fill in this gap online.”
In response to the limitations that had been raised earlier, Choo Zheng Xi highlighted that TOC not trying to be the newsmakers or making a conscious effort to emulate the mainstream media. “At the same time we’re not discounting professionalism,” he said. “We are trying to incorporate good journalism habits into a community news model. We try as much as possible to train reporters and share journalism skills so new writers will have a shorter learning curve.”
Questioning whether activism and news reporting were mutually exclusive, Dr Cherian George commented on the reportorial tradition in Singapore, in relation to how news media outlets have traditionally developed from activist press.
He noted, “The history of journalism started off with partisan roots with early ideological Chinese papers.”. He then went on to describe Singapore’s history of having “a rich tradition of public thought and national discourse”, concluding that “the way to decide categories is to decide where your ultimate interest lies”, and proposing that the researchers avoid “[imposing] the mainstream definition of journalism in your research.”
The session briefly digressed into an exchange about government regulation and the inadequacies of legislation in the online political blogosphere, brought on by James Gomez’s suggestion for “more discussion… on regulation and how crimes may be committed under ignorance, [as] online citizens do not understand regulation” and the possibility of the govenrment criminalising “online civil disobedience”. Ng E Jay commented that “the government will only take legal action against online activity when it deems such activity as a threat.” Choo further added that the legal ambiguities deterred people from active participation, preventing the online media from taking on a nation-building role by providing alternative strands of discourse and empowerment through participation.
The discussion soon turned back to the nature of the development of socio-political discourse on the Internet. Andrew Loh remarked on the tone of discourse over the years becoming more civil despite the anti-establishment nature of the content, and the contrast this provided to the more vitriolic and uncivil comments posted in response to articles or commentaries. Tan Tarn How further spoke about the development of online content, from a form that used to be “intellectual, even rarefied”, to the present utilisation of online space in a way that engages with issues while critically questioning the government’s handling of local issues.
Participants’ feedback
Feedback from participants was generally mixed, and ranged from the positive to the neutral to the pessimistic. While Martyn See felt that the seminar presentation was well-thought out, he was less sanguine about the prospects of the liberalisation and development of the Internet. “I think the liberalisation will extend mainly to political parties. But it will remain closed for the rest, especially independent filmmakers, and the space for offline political activities might become more restricted.”
Alex Au provided a more neutral take on the seminar when TOC later interviewed him over the phone. “I have no strong feelings about the seminar. The seminar was as interesting as data-gathering is interesting,” he said. “It is the nature of seminars for such issues to clarify weaknesses, to be questioned. It is important and crucial to define parameters and in the nature of think tanks for such seminars to be held and discussed.”
Tan Tarn How was more upbeat and described his research as a “work in progress, with ideas being thrown up”, and more “descriptive than normative” in its characterisation of political blogs here. This is in contrast to government-endorsed sites like REACH which provided “no robust and proper discussion about issues”, with forums that were “less serious and lacked depth”. He went on to express the opinion that the government is now looking more seriously at the liberalisation of new media, with the progress made in changes to the Films Act.
Similarly, Ng E Jay found the research and accounts of the Internet’s evolution to be of a “good quality”, but had a problem with what he felt to be the “arbitrary and vague distinction between activism and reporting”. “I started as a commentator and communicated through my blog, making the transition from online to offline.” Still, he applauded the measures used so far to improve readership of blogs and widen engagement – going offline, publishing pamphlets, and holding events at Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim Park – and raised the possibility of publishing a newsletter in future.
In his closing remarks, Ambassador Ong, who is also Director of IPS, raised questions on how the new media impacts the old (mainstream) media, how online expression brings about change in the approach of the government, and the impact of political, social and personal activism on society as a whole.
“There is more sophistication nowadays in expressing certain views. Alex Au is articulate. I think the online community realises the need to be more mature,” he said. “People know that emotional commentaries do not go far.”
———–
Read also: Getting their hands dirty: an allusion or elusion? by Ravi Philemon.
———–
Related posts:
- Political renewal – obstacles and sacrifices
- Survey on socio-political blogs
- Blogs, bloggers, blogging
- Of untrue material, politicians lying and blogs which tell the truth
- Blog Feature: The newspaper’s the problem, not the blogs
I see James Gomez is now in Singapore. And he has become a Dr James Gomez!
He got his PhD? Great. It is going to be a bigger fight this time around.
My biggest fear is when
all these you see above and all the bloggers,
all suddenly have a common mindset of the…….p…..
and then neutral gear ……
Another quick one. Was this a by invitation only event? As I come help feeling only a small fraction of the known net made up the quorum. Could some please tell me? Thanks
Will TOC be converted given the rosy life?
oops. may be censored i got a hunch.
TOC was this a by invitation only event by IPS?
I was at this seminar where Tarn How also remarked that there was a “dire need for alternatives”, but the perception of the public was that the main-stream media was mostly reliable except when reporting or commenting of socio/political issues, where it is usually read “with a pinch of salt”, meaning they exaggerate and distort things, so what they say shouldn’t be believed unquestioningly.
My thoughts on the seminar: http://singaporesocialactivist.blogspot.com/2009/03/getting-their-hands-dirty-allusion-of.html
Green rover, ben10,
Yes, the event was by invitation only.
“The event was by invitation only.” That is what I feared. We all know what to expect now from the darkside of the internet now. This has to be the most provocative moves by IPS. I happen to know Dr Tan. He seems to be an affable person, but even I cannot understand why he structured it in such a way to sideline so many in the internet. And instead structured it as some exclusive elitist coffee club. I really dont.. Trust me, this is just the begining of the story. Just my two cents.
Yeah..like to attend as well…learn and upgrade my skills on the new media stuff. Dont mind paying for it!
8) Dr Daniel Lim on March 5th, 2009 3.58 pm
“The event was by invitation only.” That is what I feared. We all know what to expect now from the darkside of the internet now.
I have no idea what to expect, please tell us what you are expecting.
To me, it is just a forum for the academic getting some feedback on their working paper. All the participants have been around for a long time. They know the government thinking and they are not likely to change their own position also.
What I cannot understand is why did IPS not structure it as an open forum, so that all of us can benefit from it. My wife is currently working on a paper relating to social networking. If we knew, we certainly would have attended. So I dont understand why it was even structured in such secretive back door way.
Another thing how many anonymous bloggers were represented out of the entire invitation list? I realize, anonymous bloggers may not wish to appear, but I just like to ask the good Dr Tan, did IPS even bother to reach out to this segment in the net? Or maybe he doesnt consider it worthwhile to reach out.
I am frankly quiet flabbergasted that this was a by invitation only event. Really, if it was structured in such a way in the US, we will just call it; a one horse race.
Very disturbing indeed for such a prestigious org like IPS. I will stop here, before I say something, I may regret.
Dr Daniel Lim Ghee Tong
PS: Dr Tan if you wish to give a reply here, please do so in the address I have enclosed, but I reserve the right to circulate it to my colleagues who are equally disturbed and shock by this development.
11) Dr Daniel Lim on March 5th, 2009 4.22 pm
….. structured in such secretive back door way.
…….I realize, anonymous bloggers may not wish to appear, but I just like to ask the good Dr Tan, did IPS even bother ………
ST reported the forum, so there was really nothing “secretive back door way”.
Do you know that some anonymous bloggers got email interviews from MSM and academic like Mr Tan all the time?
I had a nightmare:
. they all became friends eventual.
-the end-
1. I found a lot of info on Ong , the ambassador. so, its touching that an ambassador is keen on online thingies. thanks ong!
2. why no video coverage? not allowed?
11/ prestious????? u must be mad. watver gave u the idea some govt-funded thinktank toeing PAP politics is ‘prestigious’. duh.
4) Tan Shin Kor on March 5th, 2009 1.52 pm Will TOC be converted given the rosy life?
oops. may be censored
Good point there! To be co-opted comes to mind.
One can only hope that people like Andrew are not the million dollar a year can be bought type.
That’s life. The question will always be how much.
Too far fetched?
Hey! Welcome to the world!
I feel that there is no need to worry about regulating the blogs.
what i mean is , readers who post on blogs SHOULD know that the blog website CAN access quite a few connection info about the comment poster.
get my drift?
I trust that these info is not for sale. ;)
when i asked why no video footage, was it not allowed, my comments did not appear.
maybe just unlucky i guess. connection bo ho.
Interesting event. I was invited but I could not make it.
Something that should have been mentioned (maybe it was, but I didn’t read in the article): how the laws on media ownership potentially restrict blogs like TOC from obtaining accreditation for their bloggers as journalists to attend govt news conferences, interview the public & politicians, etc…
If TOC or other similar blogs hire bloggers as professionals (i.e. pay a regular salary etc like the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc.), the question that would arise is: a) doesn’t that make them a “media outlet”?
b) if so, shouldn’t they be liable to the same laws as SPH & MediaCorp?
c) if not, what law/s do they fall under? (cos legislation is needed in case of negligence, etc.)
Apologies if this issue has been addressed here before..
The title of the seminar is “Getting Their Hands Dirty: Recent Developments in Singapore’s Political Blogosphere”. And yet representatives from political parties, especially the active ones in cyberspace are missing.
The head of IPS, Ong Keng Yong was a former press secretary to Goh Chok Tong. Apart from a few, the assembled crowd, through invitation only, is made up of individuals acceptable to the establishment. What is worse, there were participants who are known former ISD operatives, civil servants and PAP sycophants.
The title of the seminar should have been “Ideas for PAP to manage and control political blogosphere”.
It would be better if blogs like TOC fall under specific laws. Being gray gives rise to legal flexibility that would be needed for political discourse in Singapore.
Actually, James Gomez made several interesting points with regards to this IPS Seminar.
1. The potential regulators of New Media are among the participants. The. Strategic Planning and Development and Policy and Operations divisions of MHAs and the Public Communications Division of MICA were present.
2. There was an attempt to suggest that anonymously run sites’ content may not be authentic or reliable.
3. Even sites that were not run anonymously were admonished for not being fully “professional”.
4. In the IPS sample, there is a clear attempt to avoid analysing or including political sites or sites of activists.
5. The term “online civic participation” is actively promoted while trying to simultaneously negate terms like “activism” and “online civil disobedience’.
I would be interested to know the motivation for TOC to participate in such a discussion held by them.
What is the purpose of this discussion?
What is the real intended objective ?
interesting to note this guy called James Gomez also attended.
Is TOC an idea that came from some organization of thinking?
get my drift?
The title is clearly one of “Recent Developments in Singapore’s Political Blogosphere”. How to have a seminar excluding known sites managed by political parties? If potential regulators of cyberspace are fit to attend, together with known former ISD operatives, why not invite political parties that maintain websites providing information and news?
The IPS sample is nothing new. It was a rehash of an old sample done in 2005 to skew the results in favour of our 147th ranked MSM.
Ong Keng Yong, former press secretary to Goh Chok Tong who is heading IPS chaired the seminar to ensure that the blogosphere is well contained and regulated by the PAP that is notorious for intolerant of any dissent.
17) papsamleong on March 5th, 2009 10.19 pm
Actually, after reading this article, it changed my mind.
I don’t feel so good.
TW political commentator was asked, can human character be tested ?
I shall not disclose the answer.
26) seebeng on March 6th, 2009 11.35 am
The title is clearly one of “Recent Developments in Singapore’s Political Blogosphere”. How to have a seminar excluding known sites managed by political parties?
========================
So, this seminar assumes to be the voice for the blogosphere?
If they so say…..
I have observed TOC for sometime. Its speakers and writers are more neutral than political websites. They have been given a lot of media attention. I still cannot understand why.
Maybe its not an alternative political party website. Is its role trying to show more freedom in views? Would its work lead to a better IBA report?
It seems like it prefer to go the way of think think organization kinda of path.
Is this why none of TOC people have declared they have become politicians?
Can you spare this comment?
So, this seminar was held at Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and chaired by an ambassador and selected bloggers were asked to take part. There is no video of what went on and discussed there although there is this article.
So, my question to TOC is WHAT was meant to be ACHIEVED in that seminar ?
What are the good things achieved for the People with respect to Freedom of Speech and Expression and freedom to discuss politics?
forgot to ask,
did any of you realise there is something common in many of these attendees?
like their past?
the forgetful guy , did his stunt caused damage to work… part… at the last e?
what is he up to now? what has he done to alternativity? i wonder. where is news on him?