The Current State

I've wondered for a long time the question 'why'? Why did the government had to use such a strong rebuttal to Mr. Brown's final article in Today's Friday column. After I've heard Dr. Balakrishnan's reply to the query from main stream media (msm), I think I begin to fathom why.

Mr. Brown, a popular blogger with a popular newspaper column, crosses the chasm between online and offline media. He is the bridge between offline and online. No matter how important we think the Internet is, but it is only to our perspective and perception. Many normal citizens (try asking your mom what a blog is) who are above a certain age threshold (which may still form the majority of the voting population), they don't surf the web, even if they do, an even smaller percentage would know what a blog is. Therefore, the main media of transmission, is still the main stream media. If the government had responded the way I suggested previously, using the light-touch approach, it may end up giving more recognition to the Mr. Brown persona which is not the government's intention. If a light-touch was used, I can imagine on Mr. Brown's blog, a new tagline "It is so funny that even the minister reads" will appear.

If you re-read K Bhavani's (press secretary of MICA) reply, you'll begin to notice that the reply was geared towards the offline readers, not the online population. However, it makes one wonder, who reads Today papers? I would guess that readers of Today are generally the more mobile and connected population? I may be wrong here though.

Whatever opinions posted onlines, written in blogs and forums, they only belong to the fringe population (us). The views and opinions are only read within the small circle (albeit a growing one).

As citizens of a progessive society, we had hoped that the government will be more open and inclusive. However, truth of the matter is, the current incumbent party won't make drastic changes. The old adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" will ring very true here. Unless an alternative party shows a different path (a more open, inclusive and consultative governance) which leads it to success, then the current party will see no reason to change nor appear friendlier in their public response to criticisms.

The other problem is that many of the politicians are high up on their ivory towers, which is both good and bad. The good is that it allows the politicians to see far and plan long term; the bad is that they won't be able to see near nor hear the opinions of the ground. This may even be exacerbated by the recruitement process adopted by the current incumbent party - the candidates are selected from a pool of elites and these elites may not be passionate about the plight of the common people. They may not even share the ideals of the party as in a few instances, it was reported in the main stream media interviews that the candidates had to be strongly encouraged and convinced after various number of recruitment meetings before they agreed to join the party. I would think someone who feels that he/she can make a difference in both the party and society would have jumped at the opportunity. But apparently many don't jump at the chance. Why?

So even if the selected candidates joined politics, they may be disconnected with the common people as they don't empathise with the common people.

In order for change to happen, we need better alternative parties than currently available. This actually ties-in with the "will of the people". At least currently, with the available choices, 66.6% of the people, does not want a change. Will the Internet, blogs and citizen journalism be the future differentiator? Only time will tell.

I would also like to take this opportunity to offer my two cents in response to Bhanvani's letter. I don't want to be labelled as polemic, diatribe or whatever. Instead, I would like to offer constructive criticism and alternatives.

1. The people understand that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices. Since we've been offered Progress Package, which was to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living, I would suggest continue offering Progress Package to the people at the bottom third of the wage group annually. This will help alleviate the rising costs felt by the more needy population on a regular basis.
2. Mean testing for special school fees. There are inherent weaknesses in the method of mean testing. There may be people who are "rich" on paper, but actually quite cash-strapped, the government should allow recourse and appeal for these people so their cases can be reviewed.
3. Future major road projects to be outsourced to private companies. I don't like the idea (but who cares, my opinion probably doesn't matter anyway). Government has collected taxes from the people and if I'm not wrong, we should have surplus (else where did the progress package get its funds from). The government should tap on these resources first. Continue to use ERP to collect instead of using toll stations. This way, at least in terms of political image and public relations wise, it is not so damaging.

I'm drinking my vodka while I write this. Maybe in my alcohol induced delirium, I see clarity.