- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]How the Government Uses Own Mouthpiece to Shape Own
Propaganda[/h]
October 20th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
In page A8 of The Straits Times today (Thursday, October 18, 2012), The
Straits Times had written the following: “Instead of blogs and social media, he
(Mr Bryan Chow) took to The Straits Times Forum Page to air his views. “Its
readership is much wider (than social media) and provides for more
credibility,” said the second-year medicine student at the National
University of Singapore.”
The aim of this statement is three-fold.
1. The newspaper wants to slight blogs and social media as being media
platforms which are not credible. It wants to discourage the reading of blogs
and social media.
2. The newspaper wants to justify that it’s worth your effort to write into
the Forum Page, instead of create your own blog or use social media, by
highlighting its “much wider” readership.
3. In doing so, if you are less likely to set up a blog or use social media,
and more more likely to write into the Forum Page, the newspaper would be able
to centralise discussion on that platform. If their strategy works and you do
not see the need to create too many competing platforms, then they would be able
to effectively centralise and control the discussion in Singapore, by publishing
only letters which are “approved”.
As it is, over the past few months, the newspaper has been forced to also
cover news which have been discussed like wildfire online and so, to be
considered credible, they had no choice but to cover those news.
See, the strategy of Singapore’s mainstream media is to allow for online
“noise” to be contained in that domain. However, if it spills over when the
population at large starts discussing about what had been brought up online, the
mainstream media will have no choice but to pick up on it. And it gets tiring
for the mainstream media to do so, because then they would have to provide
alternate viewpoints, which as a controlled platform, makes it difficult for
them to keep up with a consistent national propaganda. By covering alternative
news, they are allowing Singaporeans to think and question in a way that is not
aligned to the overall propaganda.
So they’ve moved into the next stage of their media framing strategy – take a
more aggressive stance towards blogs and social media, render them as being less
credible and refocus attention back to the mainstream media.
The strategy for the Forum Page is two-fold:
1. Ensure a consistent national propaganda is followed through in a
consistent fashion in letters published.
2. Publish letters which offer alternative views which they find easy to
stomach and does not upset their stance in an adverse manner, so as to appease
the alternative voices. But will the suggestions be acted on? Or will it be
aired and ignored? That is the question.
In today’s Forum Page, the newspaper had decided to do a feature which
“reprises 11 letters in print.” According
to the Forum editor, Yap Koon Hong, the letters were chosen based on three
values. “First, contributions are voluntary … It is, in this age of social media
anonymity, an unusual trait in public discussion, and we think, a very good
reason for Forum’s credibility (again, thumping their own credibility and making
a snide remark at social media) … The second principle was an organizing one,
which was to reflect the variegated nature of last year’s issues. Politics was
the runaway hit powered by the watershed elections … Finally, we kept the
selection to one person, the Forum editor, because picking letters for
publication us ultimately a judgment call.“
The Forum had purported these three values to look objective. They have also
added this disclaimer – “Mea culpa if you don’t like them, and if you do, thank
you. Either way, enjoy.” Sounds a bit like we have enough of you knowing that we
have an agenda, but you know what, we couldn’t care less. We are tired of having
to be honest.
(I was informed by a friend that “mea culpa” means “my mistake” or “my
fault”. The Straits Times had clearly added this disclaimer to cover up for
their lack of transparency, responsibility and credibility. By using a Latin
word to describe how they know that by displaying the 11 selected letters that
are biased, that they know they are hypocritical at criticising others (bloggers
and social media users), they tried to cover up for their hypocrisy by saying
that they are sorry by not exactly saying they are sorry – by using less known
phrases.
In effect, The Straits Times knows that it is an irresponsible and biased
media channel which takes clear sides, and they are trying to admit to it, but
only as a disclaimer to people who will catch them out, as this article
has.
noting the selection is done by only one person, and if the letters are
representative of the viewpoints of Singaporeans at large – though this isn’t
actually one of their selection criteria.
Single-party
state works best for Singapore by Lee Kek Chin, 46“Having a single party allows the leaders to steer the country in one
direction.
On the other and, a two-party or multi-party system forces each party to
serve party interests, sometimes at the expense of the country’s progress.
I believe it is because our single-party government steered the country in
one direction.
Bigger nations with a two-party or multi-party system can afford to falter
and recover. For a small country like Singapore, there is no room for second
chances.”
Represent
alternative voices well by Liu Mengqi, 23
well that ends well for Singapore but… By Heng Cho Choon, 69
“Although the PAP lost in Aljunied GRC, I have great respect for the
losing team helmed by a Foreign Minister George Yeo.
Mr Yeo and his teammate, Minister (PMO) and Second Minister for Finance and
Transport Lim Hwee Hua, paid tribute to Aljunied voters and congratulated Mr Low
This Kiang, who led the Worker’s Party to victory in the constituency. I was
impressed by Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Zainul Abidin
Rasheed’s apology.
The pressure is now on Mr Low and his team to perform well or face defeat at
the next general election. I hope the winners will not be carried
away and will be prepared to work hard for the elderly in Aljunied who
face problems like rising cost of living, transport costs and the escalating
cost of utility bills.”
She
prefers her First World estate by Khartini Khalid, 36
I don’t have to go into the details of her letter. We would know enough if it
by now (if I were the newspaper, I would be secretly happy that netizens have
chosen only to focus on this letter but not notice the other letters).
You just need to read between the lines to understand how the
government wants to position itself.
Is this credible? The Straits Times Forum Page wants to see itself as such.
However, if the mainstream media is biased in their selection of articles and
letters, how credible does that make them? If they want a credible discussion to
happen online, do they have to take the lead to be responsible in the news they
put out? If the mainstream media puts out news which are biased, netizens are
only going to learn from this media platform which has a “much wider”
readership, and learn to also be biased – they swung the other way. If the
mainstream media does not set an example on good media and reporting values and
techniques, does it expect the online and social media to take the lead? This is
a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
This must be the largest propaganda exercise that the government has
conducted this year – behind the guise of the seemingly harmless Forum Page, so
as to catch people off-guard and not rouse any
feathers.
Let’s be brutally honest here. No government will want to be truly honest to
its people. They want to maintain enough power to be able to do certain things.
This is more so in Singapore where the government believes in making strong,
firm and fast decisions. And truth is, the people accept that and want that.
However, this paradigm is premised on a balance that is achieved by the
government enacting policies which address the people’s needs and the people
trust the government to work for their interests. So, if the balance is toppled,
this paradigm will fall apart and people will stop believing in the government.
And so, now we realise the pitfalls of having a strong singular government which
continues to push through with its decisions, which are not made in accordance
to our needs.
And that’s why we wake up to the notion that we need to have alternative
voices. But how? We have the opposition but they cannot build up a strong enough
presence in Parliament. We can go online and use social media but we haven’t
learnt how to organize ourselves on it. For now, the government can still buy
some time while the opposition and netizens figure themselves out. Meanwhile,
the government can continue on its rampage. Or not.
See, at this point, if the government does the right thing by ensuring the
people’s needs are met, we can bring the paradigm into balance again. Question
is, will the government? Singapore is ruled like a company. This is an open
secret. Our President and Prime Minister is the Chairman and CEO of Singapore
Inc. We are workers. And simply put, workers have no rights. We should only work
and help generate profits. Singapore Inc. isn’t Google. It’s primarily focus
isn’t on welfare or innovation. It’s more aligned to Foxconn. Work and
produce.
So, now the people are saying – we want to be like Google. We want balance,
we want benefits, we want rights. Of course the government is resistant. If you
want rights, companies will feel threatened. Their bottom line will be affected
if they have to fork out more to pay for the welfare needs of its workers. Hell,
no!
So, necessarily, the people’s wants are in direct opposition to the ruling
principle of Singapore Inc.’s Chairman and CEO. If we give them rights,
companies will find it more expensive to invest in Singapore. Our profit margin
will drop. We become less influential on the international stage. So, what’s
best for Singapore Inc.? Find a way to appease them and centralise all
communication. We want to buy them over as cheaply as we can and to get them to
buy into our propaganda – so cut the noise online.
But fortunately, Singapore Inc. is not an exact replica of Foxconn. Foxconn
can settle it behind closed doors and put out a press release saying that there
wasn’t any riots. God knows what they did to those who had protested. Singapore
Inc. has an effective set of laws to curb protests. However, they are only in
the physical space. In a knowledge economy, you cannot control the
Internet. No one does that in a global capitalistic society. Once you do that,
you become North Korea and Iran. As if it’s not already bad that people already
criticise Singapore for the lack of human rights. But that has been for decades
since, so the government can choose to blindside that criticism. But once we
enact laws to control the Internet, we will immediately become like China. China
has the size to play punk on the international stage. Singapore doesn’t. Once we
become like a mini China, we immediately render ourselves irrelevant in the
world economy. Even China won’t need to take us
seriously.
So, what’s the solution? The government has to stop being a Foxconn and start
being a Google. It has no choice. As much as the government wants to control the
people, Singapore is only a very small country which is part of a larger sea
change of things. In the developed world, people are talking about work-life
balance, human rights, rights for workers etc. Also, as we move into the
knowledge economy, we have to start being innovative and be critically engaged
in the mind. These are all the things that Singapore fail on the international
stage. Yet, the government wants to hold on to its control. The question now is,
how far and how long more can the government hold on to it? It has to change.
It’s not a choice. It’s a must.
Right now, the government is held ransom by four major events in the world.
First, the current uncertainty in the world economy does not allow the
government to take a drastic course of action. It’s focus would be on ensuring
that the economy is kept afloat.
Second, the American Presidential Elections and China’s political transition
is currently taking place. Once this is over and the world’s two largest
economies refocus their energies onto the economy once again, things will take a
different turn – the government hopes that business-oriented politicians win and
even if it’s not good for the welfare of the American people, Mitt Romney is who
the government is betting on.
Third, the world measures economic success by GDP. As long as the world
continues to do that, Singapore cannot change its course. It has to ensure that
it can keep growing economically, in terms of GDP, so as to stay relevant. And
this means to work the people to the max.
A fourth factor, which is not so much related to world events, but more as a
consequence of Singapore’s location is our location in a region where the
countries continue to aim for economic growth, and thus as much as Singapore
might be in a position to slow down, it cannot let up because of the pressures
in the regional economies. Businesses have many opportunities to move their
investments elsewhere and Singapore simply has to keep up with the pressure to
stay relevant for them.
What can the government do then? Very simply, the government’s current
strategy is in the right direction. Here, I focus on two of them – inculcating
values and innovation and a focus on productivity growth. As we move into the
knowledge economy, we need people who are able to think critically,
constructively and in innovative ways. In a way, the older generation educated
on a system of efficiency and structured ways might be a lost cause in the new
economy. But the government can groom a new generation of thinkers for the new
economy. But it would take another 20 years for the new thinkers to emerge and
become workers. Second, the government’s focus on productivity growth is right.
They seemed to have started to lose steam in this area because of the
difficulties of doing so – but this is due primarily to their lack of
willingness to invest financially and directly to boost productivity. They want
to take a back seat to encourage companies to fork out some of the expenses as
well. Therefore, what this means is the government has to pump in more direct
investments to force companies to adopt technology to ensure increased output,
at lower manpower numbers.
In the short to medium term, this is why it is necessary to have foreigners
come into Singapore to mediate for the gaps in our talent pool of thinkers and
lower productivity output. However, what this also means is the government has
to fast track it’s focus and not leave it up to schools or companies to find
enough value for reinvestment to take place.
No matter what, change has to happen. It’s a change that is taking place
globally and Singapore has to go with it. The government might want to hold out
for a bit longer, because it wants to tide itself through the current economic
uncertainty. But once this is over, the government would need to double and
triple up on its efforts to push forward directly with its focal areas, to make
bold moves to change Singapore and take us to a next level, not just of economic
development but into the new era of human, social, emotional and intellectual
development.
Only because the government has to.
.
Roy
* The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/
Propaganda[/h]
In page A8 of The Straits Times today (Thursday, October 18, 2012), The
Straits Times had written the following: “Instead of blogs and social media, he
(Mr Bryan Chow) took to The Straits Times Forum Page to air his views. “Its
readership is much wider (than social media) and provides for more
credibility,” said the second-year medicine student at the National
University of Singapore.”
The aim of this statement is three-fold.
1. The newspaper wants to slight blogs and social media as being media
platforms which are not credible. It wants to discourage the reading of blogs
and social media.
2. The newspaper wants to justify that it’s worth your effort to write into
the Forum Page, instead of create your own blog or use social media, by
highlighting its “much wider” readership.
3. In doing so, if you are less likely to set up a blog or use social media,
and more more likely to write into the Forum Page, the newspaper would be able
to centralise discussion on that platform. If their strategy works and you do
not see the need to create too many competing platforms, then they would be able
to effectively centralise and control the discussion in Singapore, by publishing
only letters which are “approved”.
cover news which have been discussed like wildfire online and so, to be
considered credible, they had no choice but to cover those news.
See, the strategy of Singapore’s mainstream media is to allow for online
“noise” to be contained in that domain. However, if it spills over when the
population at large starts discussing about what had been brought up online, the
mainstream media will have no choice but to pick up on it. And it gets tiring
for the mainstream media to do so, because then they would have to provide
alternate viewpoints, which as a controlled platform, makes it difficult for
them to keep up with a consistent national propaganda. By covering alternative
news, they are allowing Singaporeans to think and question in a way that is not
aligned to the overall propaganda.
So they’ve moved into the next stage of their media framing strategy – take a
more aggressive stance towards blogs and social media, render them as being less
credible and refocus attention back to the mainstream media.
1. Ensure a consistent national propaganda is followed through in a
consistent fashion in letters published.
2. Publish letters which offer alternative views which they find easy to
stomach and does not upset their stance in an adverse manner, so as to appease
the alternative voices. But will the suggestions be acted on? Or will it be
aired and ignored? That is the question.
In today’s Forum Page, the newspaper had decided to do a feature which
“reprises 11 letters in print.” According
to the Forum editor, Yap Koon Hong, the letters were chosen based on three
values. “First, contributions are voluntary … It is, in this age of social media
anonymity, an unusual trait in public discussion, and we think, a very good
reason for Forum’s credibility (again, thumping their own credibility and making
a snide remark at social media) … The second principle was an organizing one,
which was to reflect the variegated nature of last year’s issues. Politics was
the runaway hit powered by the watershed elections … Finally, we kept the
selection to one person, the Forum editor, because picking letters for
publication us ultimately a judgment call.“
The Forum had purported these three values to look objective. They have also
added this disclaimer – “Mea culpa if you don’t like them, and if you do, thank
you. Either way, enjoy.” Sounds a bit like we have enough of you knowing that we
have an agenda, but you know what, we couldn’t care less. We are tired of having
to be honest.
(I was informed by a friend that “mea culpa” means “my mistake” or “my
fault”. The Straits Times had clearly added this disclaimer to cover up for
their lack of transparency, responsibility and credibility. By using a Latin
word to describe how they know that by displaying the 11 selected letters that
are biased, that they know they are hypocritical at criticising others (bloggers
and social media users), they tried to cover up for their hypocrisy by saying
that they are sorry by not exactly saying they are sorry – by using less known
phrases.
In effect, The Straits Times knows that it is an irresponsible and biased
media channel which takes clear sides, and they are trying to admit to it, but
only as a disclaimer to people who will catch them out, as this article
has.
*****
So, lets take a look at how they have put their judgment call to good use – noting the selection is done by only one person, and if the letters are
representative of the viewpoints of Singaporeans at large – though this isn’t
actually one of their selection criteria.
Single-party
state works best for Singapore by Lee Kek Chin, 46“Having a single party allows the leaders to steer the country in one
direction.
On the other and, a two-party or multi-party system forces each party to
serve party interests, sometimes at the expense of the country’s progress.
I believe it is because our single-party government steered the country in
one direction.
Bigger nations with a two-party or multi-party system can afford to falter
and recover. For a small country like Singapore, there is no room for second
chances.”
alternative voices well by Liu Mengqi, 23
“The opposition’s role in a democracy is not to take over the government to
form another one-party government.
For a democracy to be effective, the opposition does not have to form a new
government; it simply needs to form a capable party which can represent
alternative voices in Parliament which seats members from two or more
parties.
Singapore has come far since its independence, and the PAP deserves
great credit for this.”
All’s form another one-party government.
For a democracy to be effective, the opposition does not have to form a new
government; it simply needs to form a capable party which can represent
alternative voices in Parliament which seats members from two or more
parties.
Singapore has come far since its independence, and the PAP deserves
great credit for this.”
well that ends well for Singapore but… By Heng Cho Choon, 69
“Although the PAP lost in Aljunied GRC, I have great respect for the
losing team helmed by a Foreign Minister George Yeo.
Mr Yeo and his teammate, Minister (PMO) and Second Minister for Finance and
Transport Lim Hwee Hua, paid tribute to Aljunied voters and congratulated Mr Low
This Kiang, who led the Worker’s Party to victory in the constituency. I was
impressed by Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Zainul Abidin
Rasheed’s apology.
The pressure is now on Mr Low and his team to perform well or face defeat at
the next general election. I hope the winners will not be carried
away and will be prepared to work hard for the elderly in Aljunied who
face problems like rising cost of living, transport costs and the escalating
cost of utility bills.”
prefers her First World estate by Khartini Khalid, 36
I don’t have to go into the details of her letter. We would know enough if it
by now (if I were the newspaper, I would be secretly happy that netizens have
chosen only to focus on this letter but not notice the other letters).
You just need to read between the lines to understand how the
government wants to position itself.
However, if the mainstream media is biased in their selection of articles and
letters, how credible does that make them? If they want a credible discussion to
happen online, do they have to take the lead to be responsible in the news they
put out? If the mainstream media puts out news which are biased, netizens are
only going to learn from this media platform which has a “much wider”
readership, and learn to also be biased – they swung the other way. If the
mainstream media does not set an example on good media and reporting values and
techniques, does it expect the online and social media to take the lead? This is
a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
This must be the largest propaganda exercise that the government has
conducted this year – behind the guise of the seemingly harmless Forum Page, so
as to catch people off-guard and not rouse any
feathers.
*****
Let’s be brutally honest here. No government will want to be truly honest to
its people. They want to maintain enough power to be able to do certain things.
This is more so in Singapore where the government believes in making strong,
firm and fast decisions. And truth is, the people accept that and want that.
However, this paradigm is premised on a balance that is achieved by the
government enacting policies which address the people’s needs and the people
trust the government to work for their interests. So, if the balance is toppled,
this paradigm will fall apart and people will stop believing in the government.
And so, now we realise the pitfalls of having a strong singular government which
continues to push through with its decisions, which are not made in accordance
to our needs.
And that’s why we wake up to the notion that we need to have alternative
voices. But how? We have the opposition but they cannot build up a strong enough
presence in Parliament. We can go online and use social media but we haven’t
learnt how to organize ourselves on it. For now, the government can still buy
some time while the opposition and netizens figure themselves out. Meanwhile,
the government can continue on its rampage. Or not.
people’s needs are met, we can bring the paradigm into balance again. Question
is, will the government? Singapore is ruled like a company. This is an open
secret. Our President and Prime Minister is the Chairman and CEO of Singapore
Inc. We are workers. And simply put, workers have no rights. We should only work
and help generate profits. Singapore Inc. isn’t Google. It’s primarily focus
isn’t on welfare or innovation. It’s more aligned to Foxconn. Work and
produce.
So, now the people are saying – we want to be like Google. We want balance,
we want benefits, we want rights. Of course the government is resistant. If you
want rights, companies will feel threatened. Their bottom line will be affected
if they have to fork out more to pay for the welfare needs of its workers. Hell,
no!
So, necessarily, the people’s wants are in direct opposition to the ruling
principle of Singapore Inc.’s Chairman and CEO. If we give them rights,
companies will find it more expensive to invest in Singapore. Our profit margin
will drop. We become less influential on the international stage. So, what’s
best for Singapore Inc.? Find a way to appease them and centralise all
communication. We want to buy them over as cheaply as we can and to get them to
buy into our propaganda – so cut the noise online.
But fortunately, Singapore Inc. is not an exact replica of Foxconn. Foxconn
can settle it behind closed doors and put out a press release saying that there
wasn’t any riots. God knows what they did to those who had protested. Singapore
Inc. has an effective set of laws to curb protests. However, they are only in
the physical space. In a knowledge economy, you cannot control the
Internet. No one does that in a global capitalistic society. Once you do that,
you become North Korea and Iran. As if it’s not already bad that people already
criticise Singapore for the lack of human rights. But that has been for decades
since, so the government can choose to blindside that criticism. But once we
enact laws to control the Internet, we will immediately become like China. China
has the size to play punk on the international stage. Singapore doesn’t. Once we
become like a mini China, we immediately render ourselves irrelevant in the
world economy. Even China won’t need to take us
seriously.
being a Google. It has no choice. As much as the government wants to control the
people, Singapore is only a very small country which is part of a larger sea
change of things. In the developed world, people are talking about work-life
balance, human rights, rights for workers etc. Also, as we move into the
knowledge economy, we have to start being innovative and be critically engaged
in the mind. These are all the things that Singapore fail on the international
stage. Yet, the government wants to hold on to its control. The question now is,
how far and how long more can the government hold on to it? It has to change.
It’s not a choice. It’s a must.
Right now, the government is held ransom by four major events in the world.
First, the current uncertainty in the world economy does not allow the
government to take a drastic course of action. It’s focus would be on ensuring
that the economy is kept afloat.
Second, the American Presidential Elections and China’s political transition
is currently taking place. Once this is over and the world’s two largest
economies refocus their energies onto the economy once again, things will take a
different turn – the government hopes that business-oriented politicians win and
even if it’s not good for the welfare of the American people, Mitt Romney is who
the government is betting on.
Third, the world measures economic success by GDP. As long as the world
continues to do that, Singapore cannot change its course. It has to ensure that
it can keep growing economically, in terms of GDP, so as to stay relevant. And
this means to work the people to the max.
A fourth factor, which is not so much related to world events, but more as a
consequence of Singapore’s location is our location in a region where the
countries continue to aim for economic growth, and thus as much as Singapore
might be in a position to slow down, it cannot let up because of the pressures
in the regional economies. Businesses have many opportunities to move their
investments elsewhere and Singapore simply has to keep up with the pressure to
stay relevant for them.
strategy is in the right direction. Here, I focus on two of them – inculcating
values and innovation and a focus on productivity growth. As we move into the
knowledge economy, we need people who are able to think critically,
constructively and in innovative ways. In a way, the older generation educated
on a system of efficiency and structured ways might be a lost cause in the new
economy. But the government can groom a new generation of thinkers for the new
economy. But it would take another 20 years for the new thinkers to emerge and
become workers. Second, the government’s focus on productivity growth is right.
They seemed to have started to lose steam in this area because of the
difficulties of doing so – but this is due primarily to their lack of
willingness to invest financially and directly to boost productivity. They want
to take a back seat to encourage companies to fork out some of the expenses as
well. Therefore, what this means is the government has to pump in more direct
investments to force companies to adopt technology to ensure increased output,
at lower manpower numbers.
In the short to medium term, this is why it is necessary to have foreigners
come into Singapore to mediate for the gaps in our talent pool of thinkers and
lower productivity output. However, what this also means is the government has
to fast track it’s focus and not leave it up to schools or companies to find
enough value for reinvestment to take place.
No matter what, change has to happen. It’s a change that is taking place
globally and Singapore has to go with it. The government might want to hold out
for a bit longer, because it wants to tide itself through the current economic
uncertainty. But once this is over, the government would need to double and
triple up on its efforts to push forward directly with its focal areas, to make
bold moves to change Singapore and take us to a next level, not just of economic
development but into the new era of human, social, emotional and intellectual
development.
Only because the government has to.
Roy
* The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/
