When 6.9m White Paper is not enough

The anger of the 6.9m White Paper has not subsided and now comes the clamping down on social media. Though this is a gingerly step taken, no one is blind to see what will come next. And the uproar in social media is predictable. Everyone is anticipating what will come next and when the blogging community will be hit.

Looking from another angle, these two moves just go to show that the Govt is still very confident that it can do whatever it wants without fear or any repercussion from the people. The lost of two by elections too did not register that things are not going its way and pushing too hard will only elicit stronger resentment and resistance.

The ruling party must have made all the necessary calculations and played out the different scenarios on how the people will react to this latest curb. The negative reaction is expected and is a case of how bad. Not doing it now to rein in the social media must be seen as unacceptable. So, is it a case of paying the price now while there is still time for the anger to fade in three years prior to the GE?

This cannot be a case that the ruling party believes it can get away with it. So what is the story? Is the situation that dire that not doing anything will only see things getting worst and doing it can only be better and not worst? It is likely that the fight is on, starting from now, to win the ground or hold the ground in cyberspace. Or is it a case of cutting losses, blow up the bridge and hold the ground, give up some ground but still have enough to make a stand and win the GE?

The problem is that if the reading is wrong, the backlash in 2016 could be devastating. The incremental moves in the implementation of unpopular policies that may not be necessary, like the Population White Paper, can be counter productive and ended with digging its own grave.

A blogger by the name of Roy in TRE wrote an appeal letter to Tharman to reconsider this new media regulation. Among the ministers, Tharman seems to be the only one left that is more people oriented and willing to listen to the people. This is what Roy said among many things in his long letter,

‘On behalf of a segment of Singaporeans, I would like to seek your understanding in this matter. For many of us Singaporeans, we are only beginning to realise the stake that we have in Singapore and how we need to take ownership and be empowered over our own lives. My own journey began only last year. We genuinely want to also shape a Singapore which belongs to us all. Many Singaporeans might sound “angry” online but I hope that you can understand that this is because we feel that we have finally regained our ability to speak up, after years of seeming inability to do so, and it would take some time for us to learn to use it more constructively, just as it would also take some time for a government which had not been used to feedback to also learn to adjust to receiving them. It is a two-way process.’

The awakening of the Singaporeans is a good thing (or a bad thing) after falling asleep or kept under blinkers for so long. The social media and its role to facilitate the Singaporeans to discuss national affairs must be positive, right? Wrong? Stifling the growth of social media is a regressive step towards choking the voice of the people and killing the seed of an aware and politically involved citizenry. Or is this not to be nurtured, not to be encouraged? The citizens are best to shut up, to be led, and to do as was told? How far are we from the ignorant third world unenlightened citizens if we try to gag the citizens from discussing national issues, from empowering them to help to shape the future of their country? Oh no, I am mistaken. The new regulations are only to provide clarity of ground rules of what can or cannot be written in space. Nothing to do about controlling what the people can say, read or hear.