Sometimes, it could be something that might seem a little less heavy, such as whether the McDonald’s BTS meal or Michelin-starred hawker food is overrated.
What begins as an exchange of views quickly morphs into a minefield of sarcasm and snark, with comebacks punctuated with Internet slang, perhaps to generate "likes" and retweets or to simply stir the controversy.
“The reason why I don't vote oppies.”
“This is so tone-deaf. Check your privilege, boomer.”
In June, the People's Action Party's (PAP) Amrin Amin said on his Facebook page, in response to a commenter, “Don’t take offence too easily, snowflake.”
The commenter had said that even though Mr Amrin didn’t think the People’s Association (PA) misusing a Malay couple’s wedding photo for a Hari Raya standee was racist, it didn’t mean other minorities agreed with him.
Mr Amrin’s "snowflake" comment drew flak. One commenter replied, “See la what you have done. Bongok", using a term that implies someone is stupid or dumb.
Replying to the "bongok" comment, another commenter defended Mr Amrin: “Why a personal attack? Are you even from Singapore? Your page has not much information about yourself and your last check-in is in Yangon, Myanmar??”
Several comments down, no one was discussing the original incident anymore.
Such a turn in discussion, with polarised views and insults being hurled, is not uncommon in Singapore. It is also a situation that some people perceive to be getting worse.
According to a YouGov survey conducted for CNA among 1,055 respondents, 64 per cent indicated that they have observed increased polarisation of views online in Singapore in the last five years.
The survey defined polarisation of views as people who hold differing opinions becoming divided into contrasting groups based on these views, where the views they hold drive these groups further apart over time, such as through personal attacks towards each other.
The same survey showed that 27 per cent of respondents had become involved in personal attacks - on the giving end, receiving end, or both - when trying to argue an issue online.
Speaking to CNA over Zoom, MP Tin Pei Ling (PAP-MacPherson), who is also the chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Information, said that she has seen a rise in polarising views online.
“I see some beginning of that phenomenon where you have groups of people on the same issue, but at very far ends of the spectrum. Each side comments with a certain conviction, and some even have a personal anecdote that they share to enrich the story or their position,” she said.
Referring to recent racist incidents as an example of what triggers polarising responses, Ms Tin said getting upset over “brazen behaviour” is “a good sign”. But excessively polarising responses can “chip away” at Singapore’s model of a multicultural, multiracial society.
“The thing is, these subtle changes over time - you don’t notice it on a day-to-day basis, but one day when you reach the tipping point, you realise, my gosh, there’s so much misunderstanding and such deep-seated emotions and undercurrent, it might be too difficult to address,” she said.
WHAT DRIVES POLARISATION?
The growing level of education in Singapore is one factor that has resulted in “more overt and pronounced” polarisation, shared Lim Sun Sun, Professor of Communication and Technology at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD).“People are more exposed to different viewpoints from around the world. People have also gotten more comfortable with asserting their opinions on social media platforms. This convergence of multiple factors has actually led to greater expression of political views in the online space.”
And while some may assume that age is an important factor in influencing people’s viewpoints, Prof Lim argued that this is a reductionist perspective.
“Many people in the boomer category (people born in the 1950s and 60s) are very liberal, just like there are young people who have very right-wing, conservative viewpoints, possibly because of religious beliefs. The more meaningful variable to think about would be education.”
MODERATE VIEWS LACKING, IN-FIGHTING A CONCERN
Respondents in the YouGov survey were also asked to name public personalities or platforms in Singapore that they felt encouraged polarised views.
The top two individuals identified were former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng and blogger Wendy Cheng (better known as Xiaxue), while the most mentioned online platforms were The Online Citizen and Wake Up, Singapore.
One of Mr Cheng’s recent Facebook posts that drew polarising comments was written after the PA incident that had evoked Mr Amrin’s "snowflake" response. He said: “Extremists in Singapore want Chinese people to feel guilty about being Chinese, because they have ‘Chinese privilege’. This is an extreme ideology imported from America.”
One commenter supported Mr Cheng: “Certain minorities are tactically playing the ‘victim’.”
A couple of commenters asked him to explain his “flippant and incendiary” comment, while another suggested that he “try being a minority first then understand what they go through”.
In response to such retorts, another commenter jumped in with a defence: “People like Snowflake Sarah who like to play victim and clearly want to link everything to racism. PA, vendor, MP all already apologised for that culturally insensitive and stupid mistake yet she just wants to stir and stir to cause more hatred and conflict.”
As for Ms Wendy Cheng (Xiaxue), the social media influencer’s own allegedly racist posts were dug up when she said on Instagram that MP Raeesah Khan (WP-Sengkang) was stirring racist sentiment in the run-up to the 2020 General Election.
When Ms Cheng was dropped from a show she had been slated to host on Clicknetwork as a result, Clicknetwork’s Facebook statement drew polarising views. Some commenters supported the move against “racism, bigotry and hate”, others expressed disappointment that a long-standing relationship could be discarded so easily.
Certain topics also tend to result in greater polarisation, such as politics, race and even lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, noted Prof Lim.
“Essentially, communities that have been marginalised, that have felt that they are less than fairly represented by the mainstream media, would seek alternative platforms to project their views. And that's when the complications of the public space will result in different kinds of viewpoints being aired,” she said.
“Moderation seems so hard to find on both sides,” shared Facebook user Gary Yeo over the phone with CNA.
The 43-year-old, who considers himself more pro-establishment, noted “some common areas” between groups on both ends of the spectrum. People typically share opinions in a closed environment and both sides are echo chambers, with similar viewpoints being made.
However, irrespective of whether he has articulated opinions which might be seen as pro- or anti-establishment, the online reaction has often been emotional.
“I used to think the opposition had a lot of anger. Essentially when you disagree with them, they will shut you down and try to silence you. And I thought the pro-establishment side was better. Like maybe they’re less harsh and use less insults,” he said.
“But when I once disagreed with the Government’s views - for example, when I felt that ‘race’ should be taken out of the NRIC - (someone in the pro-establishment group) tried to silence me, even though it was just a minor disagreement.”
But similar attacks were thrown at Mr Yeo when he sided with pro-establishment perspectives. Some opposition supporters would “outright argue or insult” him. They have also suggested he is a member of what has been described as the People’s Action Party’s Internet Brigade (PAP IB), a group of people believed by some to be ready to jump online to fight the ruling party’s corner.
“Saying ‘PAP IB’ is the most common and fastest insult. The moment you disagree, you become a PAP IB. I mean, I'm not even a PAP member or involved in grassroots. They also insult you by calling you stupid,” he said.
And polarising views aren’t just hurled across the aisle. In-fighting also occurs among people supposedly from the same camp.
“It’s not so much ‘in-fighting’ as it is just different opinions being put on the table. That’s just an inevitable consequence of the fact that, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you’re on, there’s bound to be disagreements on the specificities of certain socio-political issues,” explained Mr Paul Jerusalem, a 27-year-old researcher pursuing a masters in communication and new media at a local university.
Sometimes, this friction might be due to “identity politics”, he added.
Mr Jerusalem, who is a known social media figure among the younger "left-leaning" online crowd, recounted an incident where a Singaporean mainstream media journalist “momentarily fell out of favour” with some people on Twitter. She had expressed a view that, while not in opposition to theirs, was misconstrued as such, even though her old tweets would have suggested she held “similar political sympathies” to them.
“I think the fact that she has (her publication’s name) on her handle leads people to make certain assumptions about her, in addition to other visible identity markers such as race,” said Mr Jerusalem, whose research areas of interest include online discourse and cultural studies.
Making snap judgments out of convenience about someone’s position on an issue by looking at visible identity markers, such as their gender, age or race, is part of identity politics, he explained.
“When people talk about identity politics, a lot of it is fear mongering and bogeyman politics. But I think there are instances where assumptions are made based on apparent indicators of your positionality; not everyone is going to dig into the history of what you’ve said and come to nuanced conclusions on where you stand,” he added.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...larisation-singapore-online-discourse-2085511
