Singabloodypore

It is the fashion, among those who decry the power of the more advanced journalism of the day, to sneer at each fresh development of its power as mere sensationalism. This convenient phrase covers a wonderful lack of thinking.
(William Stead 1886)

The State Controlled Mainstream Media is on its back foot...



Lee (2002) argues that what is really happening regarding the internet in Singapore is an ongoing struggle for power and legitimacy to control information flows. From past attempts at controlling sleaze, surveillance and restricting information flows the Singapore government has introduced new legislation governing foreign media, as well as “the stifling of online political debates, they have sought to minimise spaces for political expression” (Lee, 2002).

Findings from the Singapore Internet Project (Cited Kou et al., 2002) found “the perception that the internet has not led to a stronger sense of political empowerment.” According to Kou et al. (2002), ‘only’ 20% of the population believe that the internet enables increased engagement on government policies and political issues. Lee in 2002 argued that this suggests, “There is little hope for political change to be effected by harnessing new communication technology within the confines of Singapore.” I beg to differ.

The Singapore Broadcasting Authority is responsible for the regulation of internet content in Singapore. The Internet Code of Practice states “Prohibited material is material that is objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public morality, public order, public security, national harmony, or is otherwise prohibited by applicable Singapore laws (Media Development Authority, 1996; emphasis added).”

[...]

What kinds of public discourse does this Singapore political blogosphere support? Is it the discourse of communitarianism enshrined in the language of; ‘shared values’, ‘national interest’, ‘good government’, ‘survivalism’, ‘pragmatism’, ‘political stability, ‘collective interests, ‘social stability’, ‘conservative’ and, ‘economic growth’ (Chua, 1997) ? The discourse of globalism or anti-globalisation has made inroads into the online discourse of the Singapore public.

However, what is at stake here is as Rodan (2000), Lee and Birch (2000, cited Lee, 2002) and Yao (1996) have pointed out, the deliberate use of the word ‘public’ which was to be interpreted by the state enabled the state to depend on ‘auto’ or ‘self-regulation’, minimising the need for supervision and intimidation of the main stream media. The Singapore state no longer has a monopoly on deciding what the public is or what the public wants and needs.

The strategy regarding the Singapore government and Singapore political bloggers is a strategy to legitimise the claim to speak on behalf of the ‘public’. Dewey (1980, cited Kelly & Etling, 2008) argues, “The outstanding problem of the Public is discovery and identification of itself”. In a nation state where mass media outlets are tightly controlled which mode of public discourse can effectively shape public opinion, a distributed online form of peer production or a centralised mass media system (Kelly & Etling, 2008). The public is engaging in discourse that the Singapore political elite does not support.

The Singapore state and its mainstream mass media outlets are on their back foot.


An extract from A Xeno Boy in Singapore...

Lee Hoong’s anger is ultimately an incommensurate anger. The Net moves on. The world moves on. The people whom Lee Hoong is trying desperately to connect with have moved on. Perhaps, this is the reason for her anger. No one cares what she writes anymore. No one bothers. It is incommensurate anger because the thinking Singaporean now has choice, has the ability to choose, to respond, to voice. Look at Catherine Lim's blog, old school writer, new media advocate. Whereas for Lee Hoong, what recourse is there but incommensurate anger if her choice is staying in an institution like the Straits Times whose excellence is only in its ability to isolate incidents/issues rather than extrapolate from incidents/issues. Her subliminal messages of “protest”, of “change from within” will ultimately remain at best as exercises in intellectual self-gratification, disconnected from the pulse and reflexes of the real world, the connected world as the Mas Selamat episode clearly shows.