Howard Lee/

Today published an article on 24 May, “Going through REACH alone might not work”.

The headline is about as close as we will get to the People’s Action Party admitting that the crown jewel of its engagement efforts since the dawn of Goh Chok Tong’s consultative style of government has really fallen flat on delivery.

But the key reason why REACH remains ineffective is not that it does not reflect ground sentiment. Rather, REACH has failed chiefly because the ruling party has done little more than let it be a sounding board for the people without a clear plan for it to a) have an organised system of honest two-way engagement, and b) be the same platform for closing the feedback loop, if at all.

Zaqy Mohamad puts it best, but still mildly, when he said, ”to have all Government communications only go through REACH is very difficult because online space is so diverse”. The online world is not just diverse. It is no-nonsense and unforgiving, intimately personal, and voluntarily generates synergy and evolution of ideas.

I could give a blow-by-blow elaboration of what each of these qualities mean, but suffice to say that the PAP, and by extension REACH as a consultative platform, has not been able to accept hard criticism, empathise with the direct needs and aspirations of citizens, and keep up with the growth and emergence of a groundswell of differing positions on problems identified and solutions proposed.

REACH remains a black-hole, and the ruling party has been happy to let it be that way. This has resulted in a growing distrust of the channel, chiefly by the online community, which ironically is the key group that the ruling party needs to build trust with.

Instead, terms such as “astroturfing” and “wild wild web” has been used when proposals are at odds with the set policy direction. The result has been a distancing of the online community, who migrate their woes and aspirations to their own communities. At one end of this larger online realm beyond REACH, civil society is built independently, which contributes to the progress of the nation without contributing to the sanctioned national conversation. At the other end, perceived futility festers and is reflected in the finale of democratic choices – the ballot box.

Today, the PAP (by choice) and the public service (likely by grudging adherence) is so far behind in cyberspace, that they have lost the momentum and trust that is needed to be effective. To get back in this circle of trust, the steps to take will be phenomenal, by overcoming ideological barriers as much as by physical effort.

Yes, you heard me right. The political elite has squandered its chances of building an honest and consultative position online, picked its fights as it sees fit, and practically ignored the validity of online communities instead of establishing itself as part of it. It has placed itself in a position of self-appointed supremacy, when the online world demands precisely a community where social position matters little. It will now have to struggle, perhaps grovel, more than twice as hard as it had originally thought needed, if it wishes to enter cyberspace.

Yes, you heard me right again. Enter, not re-enter. The political elite has never stepped into the online world before. So far, it has created its own little playgrounds, at best some playgrounds with a token thin line to the carnivals of reality beyond their safe fences. It has realised, hopefully not too late, that it is paying the price for its arrogance. Hence, all the recent promises to listen to the people.

The simple solution would be to kill REACH and all other so-called
feedback channels that are establishment-owned, listen in to the
online conversations that are already on-going, and be led by them
rather than try to lead them. When sufficient action has been taken to implement the ideas generated from these conversations, some semblance of trust should have been established. Only then do we talk about having an official government online feedback channel.
But how critical is online engagement in this listening process, compared to face-to-face interactions, to be worth the dignity and effort? Actually, it is not mandatory, but there are three distinct advantages:

Speed – The conversation is already there, just tap into it. The online world has earned, if nothing else, the reputation for rapidly getting its hands on issues. In addition, the ideas that are generated from the mere mention of issues spread and multiply easily. If you are looking for a quick brainstorming session, forget the traditional face-to-face forum. Just search for your topic of interest, and chances are you will be in the middle of a firestorm. The challenge would be to sort out the critical from the cynical, but even the downright rude can be valuable as a gauge of ground sentiment.

Honesty – Say what you like about anonymous cyberspace, it is nevertheless one place where people do not disguise their true views about issues. But to benefit from this, the ruling party needs to get off its high horse and accept that not having a name to the idea does not mean the idea is worthless. I tend to believe we lost many good solutions because of this, just as we did when the ruling party failed to give credit to a known opposition voice with a sensible suggestion.

Alternatives – Acknowledging that you do not have all the answers is one thing. But if you still refuse to accept that someone else might have it, that’s just plain arrogance. The benefit of going online is to tap on the wisdom of the crowd, to discover alternative solutions or maybe even new problems. Strangely, there are already known methods and a budding industry that allows access to and analysis
of this wisdom, only lacking the political will and humility to use it
properly.

At the end of the day, the secret to a successful online engagement strategy is not about reach, or REACH for that matter. The Singapore online population has grown weary over the years, not of too little done, but of what was done. The PAP to date has focused on reaching out to citizens online, but has given scant regard for understanding us in any real way, beyond paying lip service to bulk
of our grouses.

Technology was exploited, but in a very bad way. The way to redemption is not about “teching it up” some more, as Alex Au seems to suggest in the Today article with digital townhalls. It
is about getting back to the fundamentals of what it means to go online, doing what every blog/forum/Facebook junkie has been doing all this while.

It is about being level and honest, valuing ideas and ideals for what they are worth, not just who utters them, respecting and reveling in diversity rather than view it as messy and flippant. It is about a change in attitude, the courage to act on views that demonstrate precisely how clueless our best-paid brains can be. It is about a certain humility that we are only beginning to see in the ruling party, but would definitely be the better side we have seen in decades.

The writer has been focusing on REACH for a while. Too long a while, in fact.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Temasek Executive Director, Lee Theng Kiat appointed as Chairman-designate of Singtel Board

The Singtel board has appointed Mr Lee Theng Kiat to the board…

王瑞杰要促进年轻人工作生活平衡 网民:只是梦幻理论

“政府不久将会推出一系列对话,以帮助年轻的父母们在工作和生活上取得平衡。”副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰表示,这是之前推介各种其他措施的额外措施,比如2013年推出的陪产假,允许父亲们拥有更多时间陪伴他们的孩子。 王瑞杰出席6月16日,由非营利组织“好爸爸中心”(Centre for Fathering)旗下“终身为父”(Dads for Life)运动,以及新传媒联合举办的父亲节嘉年华Dad’s Day Out上,发表以上谈话。他也透露,有关的系列谈话将由人力部长杨莉明负责。 “一个家庭最大的困难之一,就是学着如何平衡工作和与孩子共度的时光。我和妻子之前工作,也为这项事情挣扎过……雇主也应该考虑,如何为全部父母们创造更好地工作和生活和谐的工作环境。” 网友盼制定可行方案 另一方面,人力部长杨莉明周日在其脸书上说道“在任何地方,父亲是否有权享有陪产假,对工作场所和文化规范而言是非常重要的。在很多工作与生活和谐相关的问题上,我对彼此行为塑造的期望比政策来得强。这就是为什么我认为这个话题值得和需要我们集思并付诸行动。” 她说道,“身为个人,我们必须做出什么选择,才能取得更好的工作和生活和谐?作为整个社会,我们应该如何更好地相互支持彼此,以取得工作、个人和家庭的平衡?”…

筹募备战选举运营资金 网络公民7月6日办募款晚宴

有鉴于新加坡选举可能在未来数月举行,为了备战选举,筹募选举期间所需的运营开销,网络公民将在7月6日(星期六),傍晚6时30分至9时,在新置地大厦(Singapore Land Tower)第45层顶层阁楼,举办募款晚宴。 “网络公民”是新加坡运作最久的独立网络媒体平台。2006年五月份全国大选,半年后“网络公民”成立。那个时候,读者可阅览的独立政经时事媒体平台,选择并不多。“网络公民”的出现为读者开启一道非主流论述的时事窗口,也涵盖被主流媒体忽略掉的社会课题。 但有别于其他资源富足的媒体机构,如今本社运营全凭总编辑许渊臣一力支撑,所幸还有一众志工或撰稿人供稿,以及社会热心民众提供资讯、给予各方面的协助,网络公民才得以陪伴各位读者到今天。 坦率地说,本地非官方、非主流网络媒体的维持,可说是举步维艰。早期本地网媒的创立,多出于本地公民社会的自发力量,期许能开创主流媒体以外的另一发声管道,突破一言堂的封锁。因此并不如主流媒体,有大集团或背后有实力雄厚的财力撑腰。(例如新传媒唯一股东是新加坡政府操控的淡马锡控股) 再者,还要面对相关机构诸多条例掣肘,又或者卷入与官方机构的诉讼,(例如2015年2月,国防部基于本社文章对该部构成骚扰,要求本社撤文;去年11月,本社被指刊载涉诽谤我国内阁成员内容的信函。许渊臣在刑事法典第500条文(刑事诽谤)下被提控。) 所以说,无国界记者组织(RSF)公布的世界新闻自由指数,在180个国家中我国排名第151名,不是没有原因的。 对言论自由的打压,不仅仅是体现在有没有记者被迫害,而是在我国有不少的法律都在钳制者媒体自由,更何况政府强行通过新法《防止网络假消息及网络操纵法案》,赋予部长相当大的权力来裁定何谓假消息,同时限制一些独立新闻媒体如本社的资金来源。 结果,在寒蝉效应之下,只有极少数的媒体或记者能“谨慎发言”,更多人只能“自我审查”,深怕一时失言说了不中听的话,惹怒了小气方丈,惹来官司缠身。 然而,即便面对种种不利情境,何以网络公民得以支撑至今日?这不仅仅是一己之力可以力挽狂澜,更重要的是:公民力量。正是每个关心新加坡前途的网络公民们,多年来默默地守候和支持,仰仗读者、社会热心人士的情义相挺,网络公民才能走得更远,紧随新加坡的社会和公民力量发展,生生不息。 在下月6日举行的募款晚宴,预计宴请200人,门票为每人100新元,欲知更多购票详情,可透过简讯或Whatsapp联系96155947。…

人民协会还是政府和社区之间的桥梁吗?

日前,工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,发文感谢工人党志工、支持者和居民的付出,即便他们没法受到国家机构认可、也不会拥有和人民协会基层代表的福利,也从未抱怨,默默为社区耕耘。 他说,或许是这些工人党支持者和志工,相信一个更公平、平等和更好的新加坡。但这需要积极而不是被动的参与。他们不间断地勇往直前– 不求回报、也没有因为没得到和人协基层代表一样的福利而埋怨。 事实上,人协基层代表可享有的福利有哪些? 这包括在基层组织购屋计划(Grassroots Organisation Schemes)下,持续保持活跃服务三年的基层领袖,可在他们服务的市镇会范围内,享有申请购买组屋和执行共管公寓(EC)的优先权。 此外,服务长达两年的基层领袖,为孩子报读2B阶段小学享有优先权。 与此同时,符合资格的义工可每月向建屋局申请特别停车标签,把车子停放在所服务选区指定的停车场内,直到晚上11点。义工如果是组屋区居民,就必须先购买组屋停车场月票,才能申请特别停车标签。非组屋区居民的义工则每月须支付22元,购买这类停车标签。 人民协会成立于1960年代,旨在搭起政府和社区之间的桥梁,创建并提供广泛的方案和服务项目,以满足来自各行各业的新加坡人的需求和利益。 基层领袖则是人协委任的志工,在各个基层组织服务,收集居民反馈、协助推动政府的社区活动和讲解政府政策给居民。 陈振声曾指人协无政党倾向…