Is New media still New to the government?

In 2006 when the government first attempted to ban internet electioneering. It did not work. Now The government is also using tools to monitor and restrict free speech online.

A man in Singapore is facing charges of incitement of violence due to comments made on Facebook about the Government’s preparations for last month’s Summer Youth Olympic Games.

Abdul Malik, a 27-year-old project officer in a construction company, was a a member of the Facebook page “I hate the Youth Olympics Games’ Organising Committee”, an on-line dedicated to criticising the Government’s preparations for the Games and the cost of them. On the Facebook site, Abdul called for “us to burn Vivian Balakrishnan”, Singapore’s Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports the head of the organising committee.

Malik claimed meant the statement as a metaphor – to vote out the ruling People’s Action Party, of which Balakrishnan is a member.

Temasek Review, a site critical about the government is also taken down.(quietly)

“The government has, over the last few years in particular, referred to the new media in largely pejorative terms – the Prime Minister has previously referred to it as the “wild west” and more recently, as a “cowboy town”. But the reality is this – the new media is here to stay, and it will continue to eat into the mindshare of the mainstream media, no matter what the government chooses to call it. Temasek Review may have gone offline, but it is not going to be too difficult or technically challenging to bring 10 new incarnations of Temasek Review online overnight.”
-MP for Aljinied GRC, Pritam Singh

Many of the world's media have evolved into a more open and engaging media. News have became more social than ever before with the internet, yet many news broadcasters have this believe.

To come up with innovative ways to engage viewers, public broadcasters will have to refine and improve our story-telling techniques.

Isn't this public diplomacy? This concept should not be new to any broadcasting network that is not in a monopolistic domain. This role differs in many ways from traditional public relations or public affairs, which despite a recent influx of new technologies still mainly involves “providing information for the public” at its core. Corporate public diplomacy, on the other hand, involves actively shaping the communications environment within which corporate activities are performed, and reducing the degree to which misperceptions complicate relations between the company and its customers. In my view, this complex mission is conducted using what I call innovative social engagement.

We are told stories and rhetoric all our lives, and we get engaged in a story that we can relate to. News and information are all experiences which can be told in a form of a perspective or story. However, the story needs to be believable and balanced as well as savvy readers can see a spin.

The problem with a controlled media system is that the view are very much one sided and for other views, readers will go on blogs and other "non-traditional" media for their daily reads. When the other outlets have a differing opinion, the government gets upset as they have lost control over controlling the medium.

In the Internet age, I feel strongly that controlling the media is not a cost effective and efficient way to public engagement. The more restrictive the views are, the more interesting differing opinions will be. (And more people will read)

How do you market an unpopular cause? There are no easy models or quick fixes for a people seeking to establish a legitimate identity or share their experiences and feelings. And an over focus on media and message dissemination (should we have a Facebook page? How many radio stations?) while important, is no replacement for the deeper work of developing a identity story that resonates with the people.

There is a lot of articles online sharing the state of media in Singapore. This one is very interesting. "Impending crunch on New Media?"

New media is not new to the government, they have ignored it much in the past, and tried to control the messages, and today, they are still trying to do so. I feel that the media landscape have changed with the times. To engage people today, the keyword is trust and transparency. Information gets around very quickly and the more "secret" the leaked information is, the more easy it gets viral.

I feel that if the government really wants to engage the public in discussions and move together forward into the future, the media should be more transparent and less controlled. The attempts of their very own "Astro-turfing" has to end and people should be allowed to air their views -- both positive and negative -- in a constructive manner which encourages discussion.

There is a lot of progress as shown by the MPs having Facebook pages, but there should be more willingness to open up, especially to allow feedback (A lot of feedback channels are still blocked on social media.) Addressing the feedback on the channels transparently will also create a positive effect as it show that the government is acting and listening to the public.

It is time for the nation to have a better representation of the people in parliament, after all it is a democracy, and not ALL Singaporeans are scholars (like the majority of the MPs) The ministers do not need so much qualification to run the government, but what they need is empathy, to listen and feel the challenges the public is facing. The multimillion salary also puts the minsters in gap above the average citizen that it is hard to understand their needs and one can only assume as a $15k or $4MM salary means you do not need to take even the efficient public transportation anymore.

New media is not new. The public sentiments are all there to search for, and I'm sure the government does have all the keywords the 80 - 85% who say negative things about them online. Now is the time to act and show you are here to change for a better future of Singapore -- all with the help of social media.

-- Robin Low

Need for social media in Singapore

I've always advocated the need for social media to be in house in Singapore.

Not only social media is important, corporate wide training is essential.

Here in Singapore, pressure groups have employed social media to protest against Resorts World Sentosa's dolphin issues. Most recently, we witnessed how Wildlife Reserves Singapore was flamed on social media as a result of its sudden cancellation of the Halloween Horrors event.

Crisis often comes with internal staff training as well, KFC Malaysia had staff shown a video on them playing with food, and it attracted a lot of attention and negative publicity.

Social Media training is very important as it prepares the whole corporation to engage with the public in a transparent and natural way. Empowering the staff, most staff will not take the opportunity to destroy the company's reputation. With trained staff, enlightened empowerment can indeed allow the business to react to queries faster, and attend to feedback before a disaster occurs.

Monitoring social media does not need to be a one department job.

-- Robin Low

More info: Read.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC111004-0000106/Why-businesses-need-in-house-social-media-teams

Social Media in Singapore

Govt to boost social media usage

After the poor performance online, lack of understanding the ground and the inability to control the conversation, the government decided that they need to do better in engagement.

"You need, basically, two people just to maintain one site, and typically, the respondents come (online, sometime after dinner). " "So it's not trivial," "Facebook is not owned by any Singapore entity; it's an entirely foreign entity and putting in the resources online in this foreign entity, it could shut off Singapore," Says the "experts"

It seems like the government experts have much fear of social media because they do not understand the medium and are unwilling to engage.

I hope they get real training and learn to listen to the public and not just censor comments and negative feedback. It is a whole mindset change and there needs to be proper policies that encourage engagement and empowering everyone to participate, so the responsibility is not on a "team" and hopefully they do not need to get permission to answer the questions raised.

I hope the executives would be willing to learn and create policies that support social media. Hopefully we can see a more vibrant Singapore in the near future.

-- Robin Low

RWS Woes

Resorts World at Sentosa seems to be a pretty successful Facebook page, with more than 140,000 fans, the engagement on the page was pretty spontaneous as well.

However when a post on Sept 2 on Diets of Dolphins open a can of worms!

It started a flurry of replies on the blog and Facebook Page and as the censorship and moderation starts, the intensity of the angry replies increased. This is again a good example that if they want to post something controversial (or about their captive dolphins) they have to be able to engage in the conversation.

A blog called "Marine Life Park" Blog when it is not talking and providing information on the conservation efforts of RWS, is simply a marketing blog for their new dolphin park and not informative.

I hope to see improvements and less censorship in the engagements, and hopefully, RWS can show more of their ongoing efforts in sustainable marine life education in the region.

Eventually this will become a crisis if it is not one already as I found out about this on the news.

This is indeed bad PR and bad for business.

-- Robin Low

How unfortunate.

CNA tries to use more social media and get news from Twitter, however as they are very selective on their news and their views are sometimes biased, many people are unhappy with their reporting.

So it is very unfortunate that this shall appear on live TV, however if you check their twitter feed, and Singapore related hashtags, it is common to see many angry people with angry comments.

But it is simply very unfortunate to have it revealed on TV

-- Robin Low

The Curry Incident Gone Viral.

Cook and Share A Pot of Curry !

Sort of a Facebook Protest to the Curry incident has garnered more than 50,000 attendees and it is something the government cannot ignore.

As observed last week, the Google Search for "Singapore Indian Curry" yields all the negative information about the Curry Incident.

So, instead of ignoring the people, the government finally decides to act, but I feel that the comments made by the minister is not enough and does not respond to the root of the problem. Shanmugam cautions against xenophobia

This respond was partly because of this article and it suddenly became mainstream news.
Singapore's 'anti-Chinese curry war'

In social media, it is very common that when someone feels strongly about something, they will share it with their friends. In turn, this kind of communication gets viral quickly, and when the government wants to engage, it takes much more than a news respond or a campaign -- but rather, listening and responding to the everyday needs of the people.

This does not mean giving in to every request, but rather sharing the reasons with proper communication to let people know the reasons behind things, and accepting and addressing negative feedback instead of deleting it away.

So are you cooking a pot of curry to show your support for the rights to cook curry at home?

-- Robin Low

Does the government understand Social Media?

This is the comments made by DPM Teo in a dialogue with students.

I feel that this statement is not very valid. While social media is "very powerful in amplifying voices of people who are most articulate" Articulate or not, social media allows the public to have a direct feedback unlike the traditional one way broadcast the government is used to have. The truth is nobody needs to have a good command of English to comment on news or articles they read, they simply have to care.

"One negativity I personally don't like in social media is anonymity because it allows you to make statements without responsibilities. And I don't think we can have a responsible discussion if one is not asked to be responsible for what he says," Mr Teo said at a dialogue, Singaporeans in Conversation, with 250 students yesterday. "That results in a discussion which quite often becomes skewed and unproductive."

I do not believe that social media has anonymity. It takes time and effort to build trust, and anonymous posts will not be given much attention unless it is either interesting, humorous or inexplicably -- convincing.

Social media allows the government to crowdsource ideas, broadcast information and get real feedback from the masses. In terms of making statements without responsibilities, it is easier to spread rumors through coffee shop talks. For credibility and trustworthiness, reputation needs to be built, and this is a long process and cannot be done overnight.

The influencers in Singapore like Mr Brown, Mr Miyagi and other popular blogs all took time to build their reputation and create their following.

In terms of leaving anonymous feedback, if the government is willing to put the time to engage and understand the cause for the feedback, it might learn something new. Although there are times people may leave hurtful remarks which may seem to have no basis, but taking the time to investigate further may reveal whether it is a hoax or it is valid concerns which needs to be addressed.

Like any corporation which want to engage with their customers, it does take time, effort and the willingness to engage. Just having a Facebook page, Twitter account and a blog is not using Web 2.0 in the most effective way. It is a whole new change in mindset, policies that would support the engagement to be able to succeed.

-- Robin Low