Howard Lee -
REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home) announced on 2 August revisions to its supervisory panel, constituting Parliament representatives, Citizens’ Consultative Committee chairs and industry players.
For those unfamiliar with the Singapore government’s official citizen consultation outfit formerly known as the Feedback Unit, REACH fields issues across agencies to seek the views of citizens on public policies. It started off chiefly with face-to-face forums and has evolved (or so it prefers to believes) to online channels as well.
For all its efforts in managing its programmes and e-outreach channels, REACH has been lambasted as being the official complaints black-hole for the government, particularly for its online arm. Its foray into Facebook also started off embarrassingly without a firm grasp of how to create the correct identity profile.
This latest media release briefly outlines the role of the supervisory panel in providing “strategic guidance” to REACH for the outfit to achieve its milestones. Achievements of the previous panel include the launch of its Youth Ambassador programme, engaging Singaporeans via social media platforms on Facebook and Twitter, and the formation of Policy Study Workgroups. 18 new members to the panel were identified who are, purportedly, more in tune with youths and the online generation.
Can they deliver?
So, is the new panel really more capable in engaging netizens? The Straits Time probably did them the greatest dishonour by flagging four of them – Baey Yam Keng, Zaqy Mohamad, Christopher de Souza and Calvin Cheng – as “post 65” Members and Nominated Member of Parliament. That cringe-worthy association in relation to the P65 blog is really not doing them much credit.
It also doesn’t help when Zaqy Mohamad was quoted as saying, “More young people want to be heard but perhaps they are not sure of the channels for it.” (Sorry, Joe, but we know, just concerned if we are talking about the same channels?) And for Baey Yam Keng, likewise: “Young people want to feel valued. They want to feel that the authorities are keen and sincere in working to get their feedback.” (Push it forward a little, Einstein. Listening to our grouses is good, but how about following up on them?)
Five new members are also Citizens’ Consultative Committee chairs. I might be casting it narrowly, but these members are more used to citizen consultation in terms of community forums and dialogue sessions, and there is really no indication as to how many are actually in tune with the online scene.
Perhaps my greatest pain was to see Chew V’ Ming, Editor of STOMP, and Serene Goh, Editor of The Straits Times’ Youthink, IN and Little Red Dot, among the panel. Youthink is essentially a one-way blog collection of youths which is not getting much dialogue (no offence to the quality of writing, of course, perhaps it is marketing), while IN and Little Red dot are print publications. And I really don’t want to dredge the muck on why STOMP is a poor example of online engagement, as its reputation online speaks for itself, evident here and here.
Modus operandi, status quo?
Having said that, changing people is one thing, but a change in engagement policy requires more than new people. It requires a new attitude, and that to date is still lacking in the composition of REACH’s supervisory panel, or for that matter, the wider engagement position that the outfit falls within.
To give credit where it is due, REACH has been an important step forward in the government’s public engagement efforts. Even if its single point-of-contact position for the whole of government might be questionable, it has been effective as a single rallying point for how public policies have been opened up for the public to debate on. The old Feedback Unit is the poster boy for a more consultative approach to governance, and its traditional face-to-face forums are likely to continue serving a credible purpose.
But the REACH we see today cannot fully encompass nor hope to reflect the views of the Internet generation. Partly due to slow inertia – the online forum was started only after Singaporeans have flocked to their favourite forums to discuss national issues, complain or just to coffeeshop talk – it never got off to a good start because it was constrained by its limited rules of engagement.
REACH needs to understand that the way to engage online is never the same as the traditional methods it is using. The online world is not your average town hall session. For a start, it is less patient and more opinionated – you will not see people politely raising hands to ask questions, nor unquestioningly take the last words of the panel chairing the discussion as final. For that matter, the panel of experts is actually non-existent online, because the value of expertise is on substance, not position.
But while being slow on the start is a valid excuse, slow on catching up is not. As an example, TOC’s Facebook fans number a humble 6,600, yet it still hold commendably well against REACH’s 2,200. What differentiates TOC from REACH is the level of openness to discussion and comments, which REACH can never quite attain, perhaps due to Big Brother associations, but more likely due to the actual level of responsiveness that netizens face when using REACH.
So what is really lacking in REACH’s effort to engage? In the public’s eye, it is the lack of true desire, and also the courage to go into unfamiliar territory.
Public feedback platforms were already there and active even before REACH attempted to enter cyberspace, but never sanctioned as “legitimate”. No efforts were made to leverage these existing platforms and engage them. Instead, the current behemoth of a portal was create, which till today still struggles to keep up a decent response level to elevate it from black-hole status. You only need to read the number and quality of responses to comments on the portal and its Facebook wall to realise this.
By its very nature, REACH is not generating the level and volume of honest feedback that is already prevalent on other online platforms. Add to that the annoying attitude, intentional or otherwise, of not closing the loop on issues raised as important by its users, and you begin to understand why netizens have such an adverse attitude towards REACH.
It is even more worrying when you realise REACH is supposed to be the main platform for policy makers to seek the views of the online communities on policies, when its basic mode of engaging these online communities has not changed. Unless REACH truly begins to reach out, changing its supervisory panel might matter very little.
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
We perceive REACH as a govt portal. Why bother to even go into it when what they say is likely in similar vein to the major papers – in support of whatever policies they come up with.
Time is precious, we rather read Theonlinecitizen for better grasp of the issue.
It will only make people more frustrated that they collect feedback and not act on it.
Hmmm…. I prefer TOC, TR to Reach. I can feel the ground and make my own conclusions.I know its not been touched up. I know its raw.. and I prefer it raw.
First off, that abbreviation is already such a huge turn-off.
REACH – Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home.
Seriously, I wish I can go back in time and brain the moron who conducted the course in Civil Service 101 and went “Everything we do, please abbreviate”. To give its due, REACH is not as lame as some of the others.
A very worthy salient point was highlighted in this article. Indeed most people would view such a government-led initiative as a “wayang” act. How about putting up some credible case studies of feedback being ACTED upon instead of the same old droll PR spin on “collecting feedback” ??
But then again, it’s pretty obvious AND LOGICAL that a government that holds itself non-accountable for numerous lapses would disdain acting upon any feedback.
seriously lah ..in the end any suggestino and comments made by singaporeans will be dismissed as complains..while any new citizens suggestion will be taken into consideration..
what to do..we are third class citizen
Can’t people tell its another branch of ST? Whats new there?
This is another wasted opportunity to engage the online citizenry. REACH could have easily asked representatives from TOC, TR, Mr Wang Says So, Gerald Giam, YawningBread or even The Little Teochew (ok, I just listed couple of my fave blogs…) to be part of this renewed effort but alas they chose to go with people whom they were comfortable with.
Not so sure that they will be getting an honest and candid dialogue going. Let’s see.
benedict
If the government (and please make this distinction between the govt and the PAP) wants to engage S’poreans, it would do it good if such outfits like REACH didn’t have PAP members.
In the new panel, there is Zaqy Mohamad – “one of the men behind the PAP’s push into new media.” (See here: http://www.ytlcommunity.com/commnews/shownews.asp?newsid=53820 )
The problem with REACH is that it has so many PAP members that it has stopped being a govt outfit but a PAP outfit.
So, it is little wonder that Singaporeans are wary of it.
If the Ministerial “Meet the People” is anything to go by, there is little hope that REACH can be any more effective than the Ministers’ LIVE SESSION to resolve any Citizen’s queries and grievances.
All these attempts to engage Singaporeans is to provide a psychological relief – a kind of social relief valve.
Was there any serious attempt to resolve the hapless situations that Singaporeans have been cry aloud ?
This government formed by the Pro Alien Party is only determined to work in its own way that it believe is the best for all Singaporeans.
The PAP has shown itself to be 100% top-down in formulating policies.
They don’t give a damn what your views are and they don’t care as long as they get their multi-million salary.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD, FIRST VOTE OUT YOUR CURRENT PAP MP, THEN PAP’S EARS WOULD BE WIDE OPEN
Top-down is nothing wrong, In governing a country who is not Top-down? He whom is not Top-down is long forgotten.
Even Jesus also apply Top-down, I never read he took advice from the 12 fishermen.
Hello! paPIGS don’t waste your time lar!
We are not daft like what your nerd boss said. Go and create a site entitle LOVE
F/TRASH!
I just mentioned in another article herein that there is a Quick Poll at Reach on the YOG. The sampling size seems small but about 43% indicated “NOT looking forward to start of YOG” (aka not interested). Compare this to 90% by the CNA poll and about 99% from what I perceived from the ground.
So, will take the YOG outcome as a litmus test to see the credibility of the various sources accordingly.
if the govt wants to reach to the people, it should be GOING TO the people (having someone who trolls in hardwarezone, toc, st forum and may a few other high traffic ones), and not asking the people to go to them. It’s just plain laziness on their side.
Workers Party Supporter, pls, don’t go there. You are drawing parallelism bet our govt and God, now? :)
In case I messed it, my key grouse in this article is the mode of engagement. I support the concept of REACH, but only if it is willing to open up for real. Whatever constraints it currently has, if it’s interest is to serve the people, then do it as it shd be done.
Andrew Loh: If the government (and please make this distinction between the govt and the PAP)
I keep seeing this call for distinction, but seriously in Singapore, how is this even possible. The gah-men IS PAP and vice versa. They made it this way to stay. Let’s just save the ideology for a genuine democracy and call a spade a spade.
On lobo76′s point, here is something that could be worth the read – http://brandsavant.com/is-social-media-monitoring-worth-the-trouble/
Any nay, I tend to agree with Andrew. And until we ourselves see the distinction between the govt and the politicians, we will never be able to break into a new paradigm of expecting public service.
For that matter, until the public service can see that also, they will similarly not be able to break into a new paradigm of delivering public service.
Workers Party Supporter: “Even Jesus also apply Top-down, I never read he took advice from the 12 fishermen.”
The difference between Jesus leadership and PAP leadership is…
Jesus: “I lay down my life for the world”
PAP leadership: “Make the lesser mortals slog till they’re dead for our multi-million salary”
@veritas, 6 August 2010
“….The difference between Jesus leadership and PAP leadership is… …”
I thought the diff. is that one can do miracles without much fanfare, while the other blow loud trumpets & ego and yet floodings occur … by acts of God (of course). One say something, it passes unchanged for past 2000+ years; the other say things and then U-turn within a couple of (earth) days/weeks/months later. One can be called Top-down, the other is Shit-down. Discern between a Rolex and a copy-rolex.
PS. No intention to offend anyone on religious/spiritual grounds.
Only a PAP stooge would make PAP = Jesus = God.
This is vile, offensive & disgusting!
The stupid REACH website takes umpteen ages to load and does not even work properly on Macs.
The relatively huge image of the nerdy guy looks like they are advertising spectacles.
Lastly, I don’t see any declaration of confidentiality, that posters privacy will be protected so that no mis-use or abuse of private data (incl ISP) will take place.
Are these 4 guys advertising Colgate toothpaste? And why no ladies?
REACH is just another sycophantic PAP media. I used to post there but after time and time again seeing how 99% of posters can go against a policy, but REACH will pick the 1% for to highlight as “The people are supportive”… I stopped going there.
Yes, this REACH thing-they can change its content to suit their purpose, they can display only certain content to suit their purpose, they can use its content to mislead the people, just the the one and only Straits Times, they can only tell you what they want to hear.
This could just be a deceptive move, in the excuse that they are concern, actually they want to nab anyone who says bad about the government.
Not another propaganda vehicle lah. Utter waste of energy and taxpayers’s $$$.
Yes, it works and works for bootlickers, yes-man and synchophants.
PS – “Not sure of channels?” Or it must have meant channels of truth, credibility and receptivity to diverse or dissenting views. What bullshit.
What does the tagline under “Singapore Government” say on their homepage? Integrity, Service, Excellence. Yet REACH has none of these.