http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=576
The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) has released a paper entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”. In this article, I will discuss AIMS’s stand on Government e-engagement and offer my point of view.
One of the key principles guiding AIMS’s work is articulated as follows: Traditionally, the Government’s regulatory efforts have been focused on containing extremist and harmful content. Moving forward, the emphasis should be on leveraging on the opportunities that the Internet provides in order to enhance communication and engagement between the public and Government.
In other words, AIMS wants the Government to move away from the traditional acts of censorship, but instead use the Internet more effectively as a communications tool and as a means of engaging the public.
In the paper, AIMS correctly recognizes that the Internet has empowered people’s lives and revolutionized the way people communicate with each other and share ideas and information. In addition, people increasingly seek to have their views heard online, such as via blogs and forums. There is thus a need for the Government to re-examine the way it engages people who use the Internet extensively.
New Media has become increasingly mainstream and has started to rival traditional media. Blogs, videos, podcasting, social networking sites, and other platforms of Web 2.0 have become very popular. Blogs, in particular, have become very much a part of day-to-day internet life, with politicians, Government departments, youths, social groups, and people from all walks of life are involved in blogging. In the Internet Age, people are both consumers as well as producers of online content.
Associated with the emergence and rapid development of New Media is the mass democratisation of information and content. The Government can no longer act as the gatekeeper and regulate the flow of information by controlling traditional mass media.
The New Media allows a large number of people to interact and conduct discussions in a way not previously possible. In addition, the Internet is increasingly becoming the choice platform for people who seek alternative news and opinions. This platform also allows people to rapidly mobilize and organize themselves on public issues and real life events, such as soliciting donations for humanitarian disasters.
The Government already has many online channels of communication such as e-services for business and monetary transactions with the Government, e-consultation with industry players and professionals on Government policies and proposed legislation, as well as an agency called REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home) that hosts a forum dedicated to gathering input and feedback from the public on a wide variety of social issues and policies.
AIMS believes that e-engagement should constitute more than all this, and I fully agree.
AIMS defines e-engagement as a sustained form of interaction between Government and citizens on issues of public policy in a way that involves many people interacting not only with the Government, but also with each other. Contrary to current modes of e-consultation in which discussions are initiated mostly by the Government, e-engagement would involve a “bottom-up” process in which interested citizens also initiated many of the conversations.
Why is there a need for the Government to push ahead with e-engagement? According to AIMS, the Internet serves as a good medium to foster sustained interaction between many parties, unlike traditional physical outlets like feedback sessions which may only last a few hours. The Internet has the virtue of being operational and accessible any time of the day.
AIMS also is of the opinion that not to engage online would result in alienating those who use the Internet extensively. AIMS claims that New Media can also help bridge the gap between politicians and their constituents, and build a closer bond between citizens and Government.
The Internet is also a place where much political discussion occurs, and my personal view is that the Government would be unwise to ignore it as very often, good ideas, suggestions and salient points are made.
Through its grassroots activity, the Government may gather much valuable feedback on the way its policies are impacting the lives of the people, but it is my opinion that the Internet offers an equally rich source of feeback and ideas, without which, the Government may never fully realize the extent to which its current policies are disenfranchising the electorate and hurting the poor and lower income families. They might also have no idea that civil and political rights are also an increasingly important issue.
AIMS also discusses he possible difficulties that would be faced in e-engagement. Currently, there is mutual distrust on both sides, with the authorities doubting the ability of citizens to grasp the intricacies of complex policy issues, and citizens skeptical whether policy makers would seriously listen to their views. There is also the problem that anonymity brings, for example, lack of accountability, unsubstantiated claims, and defamatory comments from writers who are hard to trace.
With so many blogs and websites sprouting up, media fragmentation is also taking place, which makes it challenging for the authorities to keep track and communicate effectively in the same way as traditional mass media. There is also the perceived loss of control on the part of the authorities with regards to the online platform which is designed to be porous, open, and unpredictable.
In my opinion, this perceived loss of control is something the Government must learn to deal with if it is to become a more democratic Government that is respectful of freedom of speech.
The current mistrust on the part of the authorities towards citizens’ ability to comment intelligently on policy issues is but a symptom of their lack of desire to recognize citizens as equally legitimate participants in the political process. This is a mindset issue and an issue involving their approach to political power, not an Internet issue.
Finally, AIMS rounds up this section of their paper by giving some suggestions on what can be done to promote e-engagement. It suggests evaluating the capacity of the Government to moderate, facilitate and respond to online comments on its own blogs and forums (such as those on REACH), including hostile or even defamatory remarks. Key personnel could be trained in these areas, and specialist manpower resources might have to be dedicated to e-engagement.
In my opinion, much more has to be done to publicize online discussion portals such as REACH and encourage people to participate. For example, I myself knew about this portal only today. There is also a need for the Government to respond to online discussions on REACH far more actively than it is currently doing. Citizens must feel that they are not merely talking with each other, but with the Government as well.
AIMS suggests considering whether the Government is willing to rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes, for instance, addressing the perception that feedback from the public is often not heeded. AIMS asks if the process could be made more transparent so that contributors are encouraged. I fully agree with this suggestion.
In my view, the Government must be seen to carefully consider feedback from the public, and give proper accreditation or recognition when it implements good ideas that come from the public arena.
AIMS also suggests considering if it is worthwhile to engage voices outside Government platforms, such as participating in the many online forums already established or leaving comments on blogs.
In my view, if the Government is truly sincere in wanting to garner feedback from the online community, then it should certainly invest the time and resources to prowl good blogs and forums for ideas, information, and constructive debates.
To be sure, much of the discussion and dialogue that happens online is of poor quality. But the Government must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is what regular online readers have to do if they want to get good ideas from the Internet.
As for the suggestion that the Government sends representatives to participate in online forums and leave comments on blogs, there are some sticky issues that would have to be dealt with, for instance, will the representatives use their real identities? If they use their real identities, many people would be put off by them immediately. And if the online community knew that the Government was sending representatives to interact with them, their natural reflex would be to become far more wary of anyone arguing the good side of Government policies or even merely explaining how policies work.
The root cause of this mistrust is a Government that has not behaved in altogether democratic ways for the past few decades, and this is an issue that extends far beyond the realm of cyberspace.
I have no doubt that e-engagement would be a useful tool for the Government to reach out and solicit feedback from citizens, but first the foundations of good governance must be in place. A Government that is uncaring towards its citizens would derive no benefit from, and have no practical use for, e-engagement. A Government that still denies citizens basic rights or enacts policies that marginalize the working class would soon find themselves hitting a brick-wall no matter how good their e-engagement efforts are. The truth is that e-engagement is a good tool for developing better governance only when the right foundations are already in place.
In order for this tool to be used effectively, first and foremost the Government has to put its own house in order.
The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) has released a paper entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”. In this article, I will discuss AIMS’s stand on Government e-engagement and offer my point of view.
One of the key principles guiding AIMS’s work is articulated as follows: Traditionally, the Government’s regulatory efforts have been focused on containing extremist and harmful content. Moving forward, the emphasis should be on leveraging on the opportunities that the Internet provides in order to enhance communication and engagement between the public and Government.
In other words, AIMS wants the Government to move away from the traditional acts of censorship, but instead use the Internet more effectively as a communications tool and as a means of engaging the public.
In the paper, AIMS correctly recognizes that the Internet has empowered people’s lives and revolutionized the way people communicate with each other and share ideas and information. In addition, people increasingly seek to have their views heard online, such as via blogs and forums. There is thus a need for the Government to re-examine the way it engages people who use the Internet extensively.
New Media has become increasingly mainstream and has started to rival traditional media. Blogs, videos, podcasting, social networking sites, and other platforms of Web 2.0 have become very popular. Blogs, in particular, have become very much a part of day-to-day internet life, with politicians, Government departments, youths, social groups, and people from all walks of life are involved in blogging. In the Internet Age, people are both consumers as well as producers of online content.
Associated with the emergence and rapid development of New Media is the mass democratisation of information and content. The Government can no longer act as the gatekeeper and regulate the flow of information by controlling traditional mass media.
The New Media allows a large number of people to interact and conduct discussions in a way not previously possible. In addition, the Internet is increasingly becoming the choice platform for people who seek alternative news and opinions. This platform also allows people to rapidly mobilize and organize themselves on public issues and real life events, such as soliciting donations for humanitarian disasters.
The Government already has many online channels of communication such as e-services for business and monetary transactions with the Government, e-consultation with industry players and professionals on Government policies and proposed legislation, as well as an agency called REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home) that hosts a forum dedicated to gathering input and feedback from the public on a wide variety of social issues and policies.
AIMS believes that e-engagement should constitute more than all this, and I fully agree.
AIMS defines e-engagement as a sustained form of interaction between Government and citizens on issues of public policy in a way that involves many people interacting not only with the Government, but also with each other. Contrary to current modes of e-consultation in which discussions are initiated mostly by the Government, e-engagement would involve a “bottom-up” process in which interested citizens also initiated many of the conversations.
Why is there a need for the Government to push ahead with e-engagement? According to AIMS, the Internet serves as a good medium to foster sustained interaction between many parties, unlike traditional physical outlets like feedback sessions which may only last a few hours. The Internet has the virtue of being operational and accessible any time of the day.
AIMS also is of the opinion that not to engage online would result in alienating those who use the Internet extensively. AIMS claims that New Media can also help bridge the gap between politicians and their constituents, and build a closer bond between citizens and Government.
The Internet is also a place where much political discussion occurs, and my personal view is that the Government would be unwise to ignore it as very often, good ideas, suggestions and salient points are made.
Through its grassroots activity, the Government may gather much valuable feedback on the way its policies are impacting the lives of the people, but it is my opinion that the Internet offers an equally rich source of feeback and ideas, without which, the Government may never fully realize the extent to which its current policies are disenfranchising the electorate and hurting the poor and lower income families. They might also have no idea that civil and political rights are also an increasingly important issue.
AIMS also discusses he possible difficulties that would be faced in e-engagement. Currently, there is mutual distrust on both sides, with the authorities doubting the ability of citizens to grasp the intricacies of complex policy issues, and citizens skeptical whether policy makers would seriously listen to their views. There is also the problem that anonymity brings, for example, lack of accountability, unsubstantiated claims, and defamatory comments from writers who are hard to trace.
With so many blogs and websites sprouting up, media fragmentation is also taking place, which makes it challenging for the authorities to keep track and communicate effectively in the same way as traditional mass media. There is also the perceived loss of control on the part of the authorities with regards to the online platform which is designed to be porous, open, and unpredictable.
In my opinion, this perceived loss of control is something the Government must learn to deal with if it is to become a more democratic Government that is respectful of freedom of speech.
The current mistrust on the part of the authorities towards citizens’ ability to comment intelligently on policy issues is but a symptom of their lack of desire to recognize citizens as equally legitimate participants in the political process. This is a mindset issue and an issue involving their approach to political power, not an Internet issue.
Finally, AIMS rounds up this section of their paper by giving some suggestions on what can be done to promote e-engagement. It suggests evaluating the capacity of the Government to moderate, facilitate and respond to online comments on its own blogs and forums (such as those on REACH), including hostile or even defamatory remarks. Key personnel could be trained in these areas, and specialist manpower resources might have to be dedicated to e-engagement.
In my opinion, much more has to be done to publicize online discussion portals such as REACH and encourage people to participate. For example, I myself knew about this portal only today. There is also a need for the Government to respond to online discussions on REACH far more actively than it is currently doing. Citizens must feel that they are not merely talking with each other, but with the Government as well.
AIMS suggests considering whether the Government is willing to rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes, for instance, addressing the perception that feedback from the public is often not heeded. AIMS asks if the process could be made more transparent so that contributors are encouraged. I fully agree with this suggestion.
In my view, the Government must be seen to carefully consider feedback from the public, and give proper accreditation or recognition when it implements good ideas that come from the public arena.
AIMS also suggests considering if it is worthwhile to engage voices outside Government platforms, such as participating in the many online forums already established or leaving comments on blogs.
In my view, if the Government is truly sincere in wanting to garner feedback from the online community, then it should certainly invest the time and resources to prowl good blogs and forums for ideas, information, and constructive debates.
To be sure, much of the discussion and dialogue that happens online is of poor quality. But the Government must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is what regular online readers have to do if they want to get good ideas from the Internet.
As for the suggestion that the Government sends representatives to participate in online forums and leave comments on blogs, there are some sticky issues that would have to be dealt with, for instance, will the representatives use their real identities? If they use their real identities, many people would be put off by them immediately. And if the online community knew that the Government was sending representatives to interact with them, their natural reflex would be to become far more wary of anyone arguing the good side of Government policies or even merely explaining how policies work.
The root cause of this mistrust is a Government that has not behaved in altogether democratic ways for the past few decades, and this is an issue that extends far beyond the realm of cyberspace.
I have no doubt that e-engagement would be a useful tool for the Government to reach out and solicit feedback from citizens, but first the foundations of good governance must be in place. A Government that is uncaring towards its citizens would derive no benefit from, and have no practical use for, e-engagement. A Government that still denies citizens basic rights or enacts policies that marginalize the working class would soon find themselves hitting a brick-wall no matter how good their e-engagement efforts are. The truth is that e-engagement is a good tool for developing better governance only when the right foundations are already in place.
In order for this tool to be used effectively, first and foremost the Government has to put its own house in order.
