The Sum of All Fears

In the midst of a slow news day where political conferences like the "Freedom of Speech: How far can you go?" in NUS (which I attended and I will be writing a review of some issues in Singapore Angle) and "The Penal Code" in the Workers Party HQ, another piece of news has taken the limelight in Singapore. In the words of Mulder and Scully (from the famous X-Files series), of no surprise, "They (PAP) are here." [1]. My cynical follow up to that answer is, "Why am I not surprised?". It is not the action, but the declaration of the intention that will change the dynamics of the blogosphere and online forum. The war on the internet is finally happening. Should we be afraid? If you have a streak of paranoia inside you, the real question will be, "Why did the press leak it?"

Fighting a new war with an old paradigm

"The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit."
- Barbara Tuchman, "The Guns of August"

One battle does not win a war. If you assume that our ruling party is rational and calculative, you have to take a step further and ask why they allow the leak to happen. After all, black ops are fundamental to any organization in times of war and conflict. If you expose black ops, it means that you are putting your own people in danger. We should not be surprised that they have planted many operatives monitoring the major online forums (Sammyboy) and the blogs as well. Suppose we assume that they have already worked out the backlash from the netizens, there must be something that meets more than the eye.

In military history, a lot of mistakes happen because the generals try to fight a new war with old strategy and tactics. The war on the internet is not about the older voters who have signed the social contact with the establishment. The older voters, having lived through the days of communism, racial riots and war, preferred the stability that the establishment has conferred to them. In all fairness, the PAP has delivered the economic goods to them for an price. The exchange is that the older generation has to give away their political freedom for economics. The younger generation or the so-called internet generation is now into the internet.

Imagine the following situation, suppose the PAP let your parents know that they are policing the net by being anonymous, what will they do if they find that you have been reading and blogging in the internet? Of course, they will stop you and preach about the good old days. Naturally, the real game behind this whole leak can based on the following strategy: casting fear on the populace through the mainstream media and pass the fear and apathy down to the internet generation. Will this generate more apathy? Of course, it will and might deter more of the internet generation to look at the blogs which provide an alternative viewpoint to the establishment. The methods used might be different, but the paradigm is still the same.

A new status to Anonymity and Pseudonymity

"The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,"
- Baey Yam Keng

One major implication on the leak is that the PAP has now redefined the credibility of people being anonymous and people taking on pseudonyms. In the old days, they will say that if you don't dare to speak up with your own name, the information associated with that anonymous individual will be discharged as rubbish and not credible information. Now with their black ops posing as anonymous, does that mean we should give a new status in anonymous? So, they turn to the next level of the argument that the message is more important.

Here is a twisted way of turning this argument on their own heads. Since they claimed that the people who are anonymous are not credible, can we apply the same argument to dismiss their anonymous black ops agents as not credible sources of information? This is not very different from the mainstream media's argument that they should put both mainstream and new media on the same platform, and if the mainstream media is being regulated, so should be the new media. Of course, they did not give the mainstream media any leeway on the issue, despite the journalists found themselves sandwiched in between like our middle class.

Think about it this way, if tomorrow an anonymous guy came up with a blog to discredit a civil servant, based on PAP's new found definition, "it's the message that is important", it means that the anonymous guy is credible. That is the part which this flawed argument will turn their heads back on them. With such a statement, they are actually opening to a can of worms with people spewing more anti-establishment views without being known who they are. That is not the scenario which I am most worried about, because the credible bloggers will end up rejecting their anonymous views as well as the anti-establishment who are doing the same thing.

What is more worrying, lies the issue of entrapment. For example, if I take on a controversial issue, the anonymous commentators can attempt to use entrapment to lure me into making certain statements that might end me in getting trouble with the law. Actually, who are the parties really affected by the knowledge of the PAP black ops? The answer is that the anti-establishment and themselves are the only parties. That comes to my next point, what happens to the neutral, credible and centrist netizens in the internet? What will happen to the level of debate and discussion in Singapore? That comes to my next point.

Romance of Three Kingdoms: The Establishment, the Anti-Establishment and the Moderates

How many groups of people are engaged in any form of debate and discussion in the blogosphere? In my opinion, there are four groups:

• The anti-establishment groups: They are against everything from policy and ideas presented by the establishment. Some of them are totally unreasonable and there is no point wasting your strength and energy to argue with them. Examples of the unreasonable anti-establishment groups include Sammyboy forums, Singabloodypore and Singapore Election Watch. If you want a reasonable anti-establishment blogger, I refer you to Singapore Rebel, Singapore Alternatives (Goh Meng Seng) and the political bloggers from Workers Party.
• The pro-establishment: Our ruling party has two blogs, the p65 group consisting of twelve members of parliament and George Yeo's two blogs and a group of activists posting anonymously on the anti-establishment blogs and forums.
• The centrist (slightly center left and center right) and moderate blogger and groups: This is the neglected group  in the contest of ideas on cyberspace. Most of the people in this group either take on a pseudonym or use their public identities. For example, Xenoboy, Mr Wang, Kway Teow Man, Fearfully Opinionated and Elia Diodati are examples of pseudonyms, while public figures like Gayle, Dr Huang, Aaron, Charissa, Loy Huichieh, Kitana, Ben and myself  remain open in the socio-political discussions. Singapore Angle and Intelligent Singaporean belongs to this kind of centrist positions.
• The "simply can't be bothered" groups: Check out some prominent bloggers who just have no interest in engaging socio-political issues, for example, Xiaxue.

If we omit the last group, there are only three groups engaged in serious social and political discussion. As a matter of fact, PAP's covert operation will further polarize the cyberspace, leaving no room for moderates and alternative ideas. The war with the  anti-establishment  has now spilled over to the moderates in the blogosphere.

In fact, it is already happening as the anti-establishment are taking out their frustrations on the centrist bloggers and groups. Gayle's recent departure has demonstrated that some people are unable to accept that even the critics may take certain positions with the government. Worse, there were people impersonating her to post elsewhere on others blog. In fact, Singabloodypore and Singapore Election Watch have launched posts making accusations to discredit the Intelligent Singaporean and some bloggers (including myself) on a public discussion about self-regulation. Even my own position that I am against both regulation of the internet and formation of bloggers association are distorted by Singapore Election Watch in two posts (we have archived their distortions into two pictures and interested readers can email me to ask for them).

If these anti-establishment groups want to keep blaming the establishment for using the mainstream media for propaganda, they should look in the mirror and see what they are doing as well. They have also alienated their own course by attacking the moderates and ended up losing their own street credibility.

In fact, the moderates present the most diverse of ideas which allow debate and discussion. It helps to expand the space which the establishment has taken away in the mainstream media. We will have views that concur and conflict with the establishment. We take a moderate approach to create a conversation or create a platform to contest their decision. For example, I signed on the petition against the building of the integrated resorts. In this three way tussle, the moderates are the most affected, in fact, like the middle class in Singapore, being sandwiched in between by the pro and anti-establishment groups.

The Sum of All Fears

Now, the gloves are off in the virtual world. What will happen? It is now a contest of ideas and a campaign to win the hearts and souls of many young voters. Are we heading towards a civil war in cyberspace? While I expressed disappointment and anger in both the pro-establishment's covert operation and the anti-establishment's smear campaign on the moderates, my fear is that the continuous war between the pro- and anti-establishment will drive the moderates into a difficult position. When that happens, we will not progress as a society with respect to civil and rational discourse.  That is perhaps, the sum of all fears given the development of events now.

References:

• Li Xueying, “PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace”, Straits Times, Feb 3 2007.
• Mr Wang, Boxing with the Shadows
• Aaron Ng, Another government public relations boo boo, Over-reaction
• Kitana, Freedom of expression as applied to everyone!
• Elia Diodati, Establishmentarianists, Antiestablishmentarianists, and Anti-antiestablishmentarianists, The emerging consensus of the counter-counter-insurgents
• Wayne Soon, Singapore Angle:Perspectives, Are we afraid of political diversity?
• Theory is the Reason, Alert: PAP moves to counter criticism in cyberspace… anonymously
• Xenoboy, Deep Throats
• Mr Brown, PAP now says hiding behind pseudonyms to post online is ok?
• Ben, 1moreSG, The Right Message and Papanons
• Perspective Unlimited, Ninjas and Samurais on the Internet
  
• Ringisei, All Your Insurgency Are Belong To Us
• Singapore Angle Perspectives, Comment on PAP's "Counter-Insurgency" Initiative
• Singapore Angle Perspectives, Ron Artest and the PAPanons

Comments

[Roderick]

Hi Bernard,

Finally found your blog! And on this particular topic too. Just catching up on my blog surfing...waaay up.

I'm not sure if I agree with your classification of 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' blogs though. The latter are more strident, yes, but it strikes me that 'unreasonable' (or 'reasonable' for that matter) is a very vague term.

(I'm sorry that those blogs 'attacked' you. But still.)

So are depictions of blogs that are 'centrist' or 'moderate'. My point is, not all blogs can fit easily or conveniently into those terms, and blogs do not always accurately reflect the real feelings and motivations of their authors. For example, if you read my blog, you may call me a centrist/moderate; but if you asked me about my political views, you might realise that I'm something else quite different :)

I don't expect a reply here, but if you want to continue this 'conversaton', you can email me - you already have the address.

Best,
Roderick

[kwokheng]

That's if we can indeed take the 'leak' as a clear indicator that the govt deems your interpretation true.

Unless of course, you're from the govt.

And thus for that reason, it still remains to be seen if your interpretation is indeed, true.

Otherwise, the general perception is that the identity is still important.

After all, you mustn't forget: Modern law systems all depend on the definition of individual and personal identity.

And this holds most saliently in a polity that has tags its citizens with identification numbers.

Unless we are going to move to a system like Australia's, where people do not have ID numbers, I doubt we should nor can we presume so much regarding the government's stand.

kh

[whybegay]

One George Yeo's post on his blog does not represent the entire government's stand. But who cares about the identity of a person but the message? So what the government has now said is still correct and not conflicting when it said to focus on the message and not on the person. Who cares about identity and credibility as long as the message makes sense?

[kwokheng]

whybegay:

perhaps. but if you look here, MFA's George Yeo does say, explicitly, in pt #3:

If you are anonymous, you will not be credible, and the Police may still be able to find out who you are.

[kwokheng]

KTM:

That's the whole problem of them rebutting comments anonymously.

It just very simply, polarises what is given a continuum of views, to something of a duality.

They're just not helping themselves in this regard.

Blogosphere was evening out; the blogosphere now (or just before that asinine article) is very different from what Denise Phua had in mind.

To me, it's a clear-cut case of some people not doing their homework.

kh

[kwokheng]

BL:

That's the main problem with this move of theirs.

As in, if people cannot at first impression, think of something positive associated with this move, then people will surely think the negatively.

I suspect it's a honest mistake.

At the same time, I also have my reservations from playing wei-qi, no matter how silly that may sound.

—A mysterious move is sometimes a good move on the wei-qi board, though try as I may, I seriously cannot see how this tactic of theirs ought to fit in any prevalent strategy.

kh

[whybegay]

bernard,
you said,
"In the old days, they will say that if you don't dare to speak up with your own name, the information associated with that anonymous individual will be discharged as rubbish and not credible information."

Actually I don't remember the government having usch a point of view. (Can you state an example where you made the inference?) If you meant about the Mr Brown case where Ms Bhavani said Mr Brown should not hide behind his moniker, I believe she meant that he should not mix his political views behind his humourous jokes, which could have a denigrating and trivialising effect on serious matters.

If people start to think politics is not serious to them, they could very well go on to become apathetic of it. Now this would be undesirable.

[Bernard Leong]

KTM,

Understand that the classification is made according to the political spectrum. You can always suggest your own form of classification. Also, note that I split up anti-establishment into two groups: the unreasonable and the reasonable. Perhaps, Yaw Shin Leong may have certain viewpoints that resemble of a centrist, but it is his political ideology that renders which side he is on.

The sum of all fears is not a fear argument, but the caution that such a move (be it honest or calculated) will render the bloggers without party affliation being forced to take sides.

KH,

I am not sure why they have done that. Perhaps it's a honest mistake, as KTM claimed. Their target audience is the voters by the time of 2011.

In the short run, we get witchhunts happening in the blogs and online forums. In the long run, it will create dissent and distrust int he blogosphere. However, I am not so afraid of that.

Kevin,

Well, a result of me reading too much books and comics and watching too much American TV (X-Files, Babylon 5, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Heroes, The West Wing and Studio 60)

[Kevin]

You must be the king of metaphors... this is just beautiful in more ways than one. :)

[Kway Teow Man]

Personally, the KTM believes that this labelling of anti- and pro-establishment is not really helpful.

In fact, the KTM wouldn't even classify all the non-PAP political blogs as "anti-establishment". For example, the KTM actually finds Yaw Shin Leong quite centrist, even though he is quite unabashedly from WP.

People must understand that a continuum of views exist and even though there is usually a pro-estab position on each issue, it doesn't necessary mean that everyone will take a consistently pro-(or anti-)estab position on all issues, if they are unabashedly pro-(or anti-)estab on some issues.

[kwokheng]

Maybe so that they can claim to the public that they are allowing dissent, but people should not think that they will not reply.

But the problem with this approach is they have to first answer the questions:

1. Who are our target audience(s)?

2. Do we have enough credibility with the target audience we are going after, for them to believe that this 'replying to dissent' manueurve is indeed going to be good in the long run?

Because things were pretty much evening out in blogosphere in recent months.

The blogosphere that Denise Phua spoke of, is not the same blogosphere as it is now.

Perhaps this has a lot to do with the PAP's 'efforts', that we cannot ascertain.

People would've largely seen it as a matter of time, that the PAP gets down to looking at blogs, etc.

And if you disagree with what's written, you could always comment; PAP or not.

But when there is confirmation that they post replies anonymously, which is going to be read as nothing less than a means of discrediting blogosphere...

It has the same effect as defamation, even if the law doesn't recognise it as such.

kh