By Choo Zheng Xi, Editor-at-Large
Rachel Chang’s piece in the Straits Times “Power of the Net to polarise” (04 Feb 2010) highlighting the increasing polarization of the internet has some truth.
Views are increasingly polarized as a result of a lack of alternatives in mainstream discourse. Some netizens do indeed express their views in a racist fashion, or come across as extremists in their political views by advocating political violence.
The Online Citizen has previously taken strong positions against both, by speaking out against unjustified caricatures of foreign workers, as well as denouncing those who supported the burning of PAP Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Seng Han Tong.
Singaporeans, however, need to ask deeper questions about where that anger comes from. Why do those alternatives to express anger not exist in our country, and what are the policies that engender such angst?
Also, one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Legitimate questions have been raised online that do warrant answering. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff: racist comments and character assassinations should not be conflated with legitimate questions that netizens have raised over the potential conflicts of interests of grassroots leaders like Mr Sear.
It is certainly not in the realm of fantasy that such conflicts exist. Mr Sear holds a position in a Eunos GRC Residents’ Committee at the same time that the constituency has significant business dealings with the company he owns.
I myself have been subject to a fair share of personal attacks. There is a website dedicated to insinuating that I am a “PAP dog”.
That does not diminish my belief in the ability of ordinary Singaporeans to tell the difference between such ad hominem attacks and the legitimate comments raised about Mr Sear’s possible and substantial conflicts of interest.
I will not, on the basis of my hurt ego, advocate the censorship of the internet. I cannot, in good conscience, protect myself through a system that places a primacy on individual reputation over societal discourse.
While I might have to swallow my pride in allowing such personal attacks to mushroom, I realize that on balance, the people of Singapore are clear minded enough to tell the difference between unjustified character assassination and legitimate questions about how our country is run.
What systemic checks are in place to ensure that grassroots leaders do not abuse their positions of authority? Why should ordinary citizens have their municipal concerns held hostage to political affiliations? These are all issues that urgently need to be debated and discussed.
We also need to look into the root causes of discontent.
Ms Chang quotes Cass Sunstein’s 2006 study on polarization. I am a student in 2010 America, where that internet discontent has just boiled over into the loss of the Democrats’ once safe Massachusetts Senate seat of Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy. The Republican victor, Mr Scott Brown, is a child of the Republican “netroots”, the Tea Party Express. In Florida in particular, moderate Governor Charlie Crist is facing a strong Republican primary challenge against Tea Party supported candidate Marco Rubio.
Where there is smoke, there must be fire. As President Obama noted in his State of the Union address to the American people in the wake of the Massachusetts loss, the people on the ground mistrust the way the Federal government is being run.
If there are unjustified online attacks on foreigners, perhaps it is time that the PAP looked inwards and fundamentally addressed the question ordinary Singaporeans are asking about the value of their citizenship, when foreigners are driving down wages at the lower end of the spectrum, and replacing them in their jobs in the middle-tiers.
When there are justified questions raised about potential opportunists like Mr Sear, the government needs to seize this opportunity to re-evaluate the dynamic between the ruling party and the grassroots from which it claims its legitimacy.
Choo ZX spoke about views being “increasingly polarized as a result of a lack of alternatives in mainstream discourse” and himself previously having to “swallow (his) pride in allowing … personal attacks to mushroom”.
I believe that alternative media sites such TOC and TR contribute to the increased polarization on the internet through stoking personal attacks.
I’ll just take the very recent example of the ST forum writer who contribute the article “Imagining a Singapore without the PAP”. Many of us may disagree with the points contained therein, but TOC took the trouble to trace him down to his occupation and even published his photograph.
Instead of facilitating a debate on the points raised by Mr Ling, which was what would have been expected of a website intended to provide “alternatives in mainstream discourse”, TOC chose to hold the match to ignite an ad hominem attack.
The Teesside Story,
Where is this article on the TOC? I don’t see it. Are you making this stuff up?
If pppl want to spout rubbish let them spout. When Singaporeans can think for themselves, people like Rachel Zhang, States Times and PAP have nothing to be scared.
What Rachel and her puppet bosses is scared of, is Singaporeans one day realize the kind of brainwashing rubbish they’re fed everyday by States Times and PAP.
@Huh?
It’s on TOC’s FB. Link is here :
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4594116&id=14440041382
——–
From the album: Wall Photos
By theonlinecitizen
Exposed: the person who wrote the “Imagining a Singapore without the PAP” (http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_485661.html) is a member of Tenders & Contracts Committee of the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council. Is that why he cannot imagine a Singapore without PAP?
Forgot to add: Good Job Zhengxi on this article.. It put that pathetic piece by Rachel to shame. I agree with you we should critsise foreign worker policy without targetting those helpless workers themselves. The Net has raised important points..
this is someting Rachel will never (CAN NEVER?) raise in her PAP NEWSLETTER. SHAME on those..
What has been raised on Net must be spread to the Off Line world.
Teeside, there is nothing wrong with highlighting the background of the letter writer. can expose Conflict of interest or nepotism corruption.
I need to qualify that by posting the TOC’s FB link, I may have myself given further publicity to the repugnant “exposé” carried out by TOC.
I suppose that that is the unfortunate price to pay to shine some light on the self-serving and malevolent role played by some alternative media sites that further aggravates the “polarisation on the internet”, inadvertently or otherwise.
My apologies to Mr Ling.
Verry funny Teeside, “self serving” and “malevolent” is more accurate to describe ST and PAP. As I said, Net polarising happens everywhere. it is only in dictatorships who fear their “TRUTH” is exposed.. and so make out this Polarlisation to be something bad. Relax Teeside, if you and PAP do nothing wrong, no need to be scared. Why are you here?
@Yong
maybe you are right that there could be instance whether such investigative work could unveil some unsavoury undertakings. But in this case, TOC having traced his background, merely stated his role, but NOT alluded to any wrongdoing.
Besides, how can writing a letter be anywhere near to a conflict of interest, nepotism or any wrongdoing? He was merely expressing his personal opinion about the political parties.
Does it warrant TOC putting his face on the internet?
A reminder to all.
What sounds like Polarization to you may not be true to others.
This is what Differing of Views means.
You need to Prove beyond reasonable doubt your claims about Polarization.
Teeside, Put it up and let the public decide. What are you scared of? Cannot accept diverse views?
Yong, I am not concerned about diverse views, but neither do I play “tikam” with others’ private lives, as what has been resorted to by TOC.
Polarization. Get used to it. PAP often hard of hearing and try to silence people.
Teeside, That Ling guy’s bio-data is public knowledge. This is the nature of the Net.. it gives info. Get used to it.
Tesside Story
what about using tax payer’s money to track the movements of Francis Seow in the MC case, or the Catholic priest who was critical of the gahmen and the media sprashed on the front page that he was found to spend the night with a women lawyer, the slipper man’s wife who murdered his brother the list can go on. So are u saying that if the gahmen/MSM does it, its okay but when TOC does it, its tikam tikam with private lives and an ad homineim attack?
There is nothing WRONG for TOC to track down the identity of the writer to highlight the CONFLICT of interest.
Hell, that is the reason why financial analysts have to declare if they have a vested interest in making a certain recommendation.
It is very obvious to Singaporeans that Ling, being a PAP elite (or wannabe), chose to defend his masters via a daft hypothesis. If conflict of interest does not exist, why is there a need to cover up his affiliation?
Ling should be ashamed of himself for sucking up to his employers in such a public way.
Dear Choo Zheng Xi,
I do not believe that polarization of views is increasing nor is such alleged polarization brought about by the articulation of such views on the internet.
In the Normal or Gaussian Distribution of views on any issue, views at either extremes are in the very small minority. The reason why we notice such views is because they are being highlighted by a small number of people on the net.
So, this apparent polarization is only a deceiving phenomenon undeserving of further scrutiny.
Dear Choo Zheng Xi,
I agree with a lot of points you raised.
The lack of valve in airing frustration have led to more radical views being transferred to the net. I believe the implication of that is- the potential of the net as a neutral medium for a ‘competition of ideas/opinions’ is diminished when the more radical views come in, with baseless/groundless attacks.
Admittedly, due to the skewing of netizen’s preference, TOC can never objectively appraised a situation and assign praise when praise is due. A torrent of anti-pap comments will follow should that ever happen. But then again, we have ST for that, so that is not a big issue. What TOC is doing is to point to the flaws of the system and facilitate a mature discussion on it. That is the value-added of TOC to society.
As Rachel Chang noted, radicalization is facilitated when surrounded with more radicals. As long as TOC keeps its issue-based reporting and thus setting the tone of discussion, radicalization (at least in TOC context) will be more difficult.
-RW
Polarisation will exist when people form opinion. We are not programmable robots, so only ignorance can lead to zero polarisation. It is a good thing that information technology has given people both the material with which to do so, and an outlet of expression.
The manner in which people choose to express their dissent is a different thing. One can have extreme views on race, religion and politics, and exercise the choice to debate civilly and act rationally. Or not.
What we are really seeing is polarisation exposed, not created, by the alternative media. I’d much rather this exposure and airing, rather than the contrived and uneasy quiet about issues we’d had in the past, while things fester like a boil, and deteriorate.
People should develop a thicker skin to personal attacks in this day and age.
Why waste time responding to another sycophant writer?
Polarisation is a natural reaction. You cannot stop people from forming groups and instead pretend to play happy families , that is facile- take the case of the recent spat between the brotherhood and TR. It has split our community into two halves – one group says so what, if they are a wolf in a sheeps clothing; the other says alot. So each will draw their lines, each side will go their own way and even flesh out their fiefdoms and respective chain of command – we are now split but we both agree on one reality, singapore is now a very investment when it comes to growing an e-economy – as far as I see it this is a form of democracy at work. Each side has valid arguments; they feel validated and so they have every right IMHO to take a position – even I have taken a position.
If you want one nation, one people and one leader, that in my view will be far more dangerous – as it means there is only one way, it is must be the best way and if you disagree with me, you are against me – is this the sort of society you want to build? I think not, everyone has a right to their own point of view providing it does not present a threat to society IMHO that is not a sign of a very unhealthy community; but rather a very clear indication of it healthiness, diversity and range.
SD.
If the reporter is so concerned about the ills of polarization then perhaps she should try to influence her masters to see the value of why the newspaper she writes for is rated as it is by the international community ….. and perhaps she should even try her very best to influence them to see the value of why there is a need to be inclusive or at least provoke them to reflect casually or deeply on what these all menas and if possible persuade them to buy into a world class benchmark…but when a newspaper can even take pride when its somewhere in 100th something just after the Timbuktu daily Post and begin to mythologize its own legitimacy as to why it should exist along with why its the best thing since the invention of cubed sugar, isnt that the most extreme form of polarization? Come, come, come, surely you dont think everyone who blogs is a child? Please try be reasonable.
SD
“this apparent polarization is only a deceiving phenomenon undeserving of further scrutiny”
LOL… Good, let it stay that way. Denial at its best, ivory-class!
That will sure help Credible Opposition take over by storm!
Vote for Credible Opposition. Vote Protest. Vote out PAP.
@The Teesside Story
You better get used to it – we are in the new Information Age.
If you dare to make a stand/comment/statement, then you SHOULD be prepared to be scrutinised by the public.
Singaporeans, by large, are no longer the all-believing “simpletons” like our forefathers. We are educated beings, many of us have seen the world and KNOW there’s always MULTIPLE solutions, to solve a problem – hence the alternative viewpoints.
It does not help that Singapore’s ENTIRE mainstream media, is nothing but just a massive soup-up PAP propaganda machine. Let’s assume that you are an intelligent being, with a decent level of analytical ability – can you HONESTLY believe the words/information portrayed by our MSM – is fair and just? or skewed favourably to the ruling PAP party?
Under such a skewed media environment – Singaporeans have no choice but to turn to investigative journalism of our own – finding out the truth and building a complete+wholesome picture – before appreciating its contents on its full worth.
Building on your example of Mr Ling – the Straits Times Pro-PAP forum writer.
TOC did a EXCELLENT job – uncovering his RELATIONSHIP as a member in the “Tenders & Contracts Committee” of the “Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council” and proving it by posting the picture on its Facebook account.
With that INFORMATION – the average reader (like yours truly) can build a better informed understanding, on where Mr Ling is coming from and the message he’s trying to convey.
Following that, we will then be able to use our individual analytical minds to derive opinions of :
(1) Mr Ling is a true patriotic and with his close ties in PAP’s ranks, able to better understand and co-relate the issues to the people. He’s trying to convince people to see things from another perspective – from PAP’s point of view.
or
(2) Given Mr Ling’s close ties to PAP – he has both monetary and social benefits to ensure PAP’s stranglehold in Singapore’s governance, hence his effort to push his points across to the public – to “persuade” them to the “dark” PAP side. *Analogy – A corporation’s management trying to convince its shareholders of their investments, prior to the corporation’s financial collapse*
This is what ALTERNATIVE media streams (like TOC and TR) are MEANT for – to investigate and build an INDEPENDENT viewpoint (supported by facts and figures) – thus constructing a better complete picture over an idea/issue/article – leaving the readers to derive their OWN conclusion, rather than getting the propaganda-contaminated conclusion force-fed down by Singapore’s MSM.
By the way – if one’s telling the TRUTH, then one should NOT worry about being scrutinised by the public?
If one’s concerned about this (like you —> “The Teesside Story”, hiding under a faceless acronym) then it speaks VOLUMES on your PERSONAL agenda and the validity of your statements.
For let us not forget – the HONEST have NOTHING to HIDE.
It seems like netcitizen is of one view and MSM is of the other. Well maybe that’s the polarization Rachel is referring to.
Among the netcitizen actually there is a convergence of views, everyone starts to want to bring more opposition into parliament. Everyone seems to think that there’s conflict of interest in Sear’s case.
If there is any real polarization perhaps it is a very lopsided one.
@The Teesside Story – I can’t help thinking whether you are actually Mr. Ling. Seldom will a person over stretch himself to protect such trivial matter. Nonetheless it is better to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You have raised very good points. It should be clear that the foreign workers are not problem. The policy is. We are not complaining about foreign workers but the quantity.
Exactly who are we as Singaporeans and what do we value? These are questions that are being redefined as more and more foreigners enter the population. For the moment, in this meritocracy society, it is every man for themselves. This is the reason why Opposition has not won significantly. All PAP needs to do is to dangle some carrots before election comes and they win big time. Which is why we should have respect for those who live in the opposition wards. They have the guts to believe and do the right thing.
The Teesside Story :
Besides, how can writing a letter be anywhere near to a conflict of interest, nepotism or any wrongdoing? He was merely expressing his personal opinion about the political parties.
Here a question for ya…Does an employee of Coca Cola drink a bottle of Pepsi In front of his/her Boss??
Sure his letter does not show anywhere near to any wrongdoing but his background tend to sing a different song…or at least show why he writes the way he did…and why he can’t imagine a singapore without PAP.
Zheng Xi,
Occasionally, when posting a comment at TOC, I’m targetted by verbal abuse of my character. Of course, what I’m receiving is way milder and fewer than what you’re getting, but nonetheless I understand the feeling of frustration in dealing with these people.
The anonymity provided by the internet allows people to be vicious in their words. Perhaps it is a way for them to vent their anger at certain people or the establishment, but it is a reality of the internet.
Just a friendly advice: words only hurt as much as you want them to. Remember, for each vocal insulter, there are many more silent supporters.
Polarization?
PAP is the worst culprit!
Who are the fear mongering ministers who always put forth extreme scenarios?
Either you have PAP or nothing
Either PAP makes everyone win or everyone loses
Either PAP makes you rich or you end up a pauper
Either PAP continues to rule Singapore or the army will be called in?
Either you have lots of foreigners or no foreigners.
In the PAP’s eyes, there is only BLACK and WHITE.
Who is the party which encourages extreme opinions? Who actually polarizes Singaporeans?
The trouble with the PAP is that they do NOT listen. They see themselves as GOD, no one else is greater than them. They cannot be held accountable for anything.
In this sense, LKY is correct to use the term daft to describe Sporeans. He is seeing us the whole PAP party sees it thru one sided lenses.
Jackson,
Thanks for your heartening words. It is indeed the nature of the internet, and I think all our skins have grown thicker from having participated on it. It’s a pity that those in power and the media still haven’t developed thicker hides. I think the frustration is well worth it if we can harnass the power of the internet to push positive social change.
When confronted with big bully like PAP. Does it matter what tactic to adopt to save our life? In the art of war when you know your enemy will throw you in prison at their whims and fancies, you know you must not be reasonable with them too. Once bitten, twice shy. If nice and sweet talk do not convince PAP, netizens swearing and cursing become very handy which explains the sudden turn of event for PAP to start heeding Singaporeans and relook at their policy. It is easier for Ah Beng in the street to help settle scores with bullies than to have 10 clueless scholars waiting to die.