Today, Reuters reported that 2 sub-committees in PAP are in charge of scouring the Internet for online criticisms of the ruling party, and to post anonymous messages to rebut those criticisms.
A minister who was interviewed went further to say that the messages were only effective if they were not “too obvious” lest they resemble “propaganda”.
Conversely, I do think that it IS propaganda. Propaganda doesn’t have to be “obvious” to be deemed as such.
I quote the definiton of propaganda from Dictionary.com:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
What the ruling party is doing can fit under any of the 3 definitions. As we can see, the definition of propaganda does not involve any notion of identity or obviousness. As such, whether messages are posted anonymously/obvious or not doesn’t change the fact that they are propaganda since they fufill the definition of “information delibrately spread widely to help a group”.
I would recommend that besides posting anonymous messages, members of the ruling party should check the dictionary for proper definitions before they talk to the press.
One member of the committee who spoke to the Straits Times also mentioned that “there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment”. Why don’t they spend the effort to reflect on why there are so few people who speak for the party, rather than going all out to defend themselves?
Why does the ruling party need to resort to such extremes to clarify itself? They can always use their own party blog to refute criticisms for everyone to see. There isn’t a need to hide their identities if they have strong enough points to make.
In my opinion, this is a very unethical way of handling criticisms. It would be much better if they can actively reflecting on why there are criticisms in the first place.
I feel very sad at the direction in which our society is going. The ruling party should set a good example for the society by being more transparent in their marketing efforts.
No related posts.
It’s known as doing a Durai – after it became known that the NKF tasked its staff to write to the press to defend NKF policies and practices.
Doing a Durai? Could be Durai doing a MIW. Who has been around longer? We can only learn something that has been used and tested.
They sounded like that they are mapping out a strategic war plan. They need to go to war against poverty, war against congestion, war against skinness, war against wastage,
BUT NOT A BLOODY WAR AGAINST YOUR OWN CITIZENS.
ok, that’s my 7 cents worth, thank you.
[...] Mrbiao makes a good case that the MPs’ hasty denial of propaganda milling is an example of a non sequitur fallacy since the definition of propaganda doesn’t care whether it is covert or overt. Kevin, however, points out that this specific kind of propaganda, whereby it is cloaked in guises that make it appear to be a real grassroots action, already has a name: astroturfing. Molly Meek cautions that such actions may have more than “clarification” modes, and that in its more nefarious form, astroturfing could be employed to incite deliberately the creation of seditious content, which could then be used as a convenient weapon for eliminating critics online by furnishing a legitimate reason to lock them up. Wayne Soon also worries about the same scenario at Singapore Angle Perspectives. [...]
[...] The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi: although mrbiao doesn’t say so in so many words, but he does point out that MP Boey’s claim that the NMCG’s actions are not the same as spreading propaganda is false: propaganda doesn’t care whether it is covert or overt. There’s even a special name for this kind of propaganda: astroturf. [...]
They are not confident and do not want to be seen as losing if the fail in the arguments and also do not want to be accountable for what they say.