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.
Singapore’s PAP rebuts online criticisms – anonymously
MrBiao’s commented that PAP’s setting up of subcommittees to rebut online criticisms anonymously is extreme and also unethical. May I ask what would not be extreme? Just ignore the criticisms?
It is constructive to dispel any unsubstantiated insinuations against the PAP by stating verifiable facts to uninformed readers so that they don’t end up passing misinformation and rumours inadvertently. This could be done on a national level by television or newspapers. It is just perhaps rational to rebut criticisms only on the relevant platforms where such criticisms are generated. Otherwise the national media will be cluttered with rebuttals which majority of readers are not interested in.
It may seem unethical to rebut anonymously. I wish to remain anonymous to retain my privacy but I do not speak for PAP nor against it. I just wanted to make a rational analysis on MrBiao’s point on PAP being extreme and unethical. Am I unethical not to give my identity? I suppose not as my identity is irrelevant to the soundness of my arguments at face value.
But perhaps the team from PAP which is rebutting online should consider being open about their identity as MrBiao prefers. Would the readers then read the rebuttals with more or less bias knowing that the rebuttal is from a PAP team? Or will they dismiss any thing that comes from the ruling party which they are already disgruntled with, with or without reason?
My view on this? – I don’t know. In the first place are open political debates along party lines allowed on the Internet? Where is the limit? We should seek clarifications really.
The act of not giving identity is not unethical in itself – it depends on the context in which comments are made anonymously. If I comment anonymously because of fear of persecution or just for personal preference, then that is nothing wrong, in my opinion.
However, for those who are partisan, commenting anonymously about political matters would seem unethical to me, especially for the PAP – since they already have the upper hand by having indirect control over official media outlets, they ought to allow alternative media unadulterated by their ‘undercover’ task force.
Being anonymous will not affect soundness of argument – it however does affect the credibility of the source – just as people would take North Korea state media’s reports with a pinch of salt, no matter how ’sound’ its arguments appear to be.
And you have missed out on one important fact – the ruling party’s objective is to rebut online criticisms of itself – this implies that their argument will probably be lop-sided to the benefit of their own party – all the more they should come clean about their identities so that readers can judge for themselves whether the argument is indeed sound, or is it marred by the fact that it is somebody defending his own party.
I say it is extreme because they have control over official media outlets already, and now want to attempt to take control of contents that flow over the internet as well. This in my opinion is nothing less extreme than what some authoritarian states like N. Korea, China and Vietnam are doing. It is just a more subtle form of control than simply blocking websites – and also more formidable since it is really an attempt to mislead people into believing the comments are made by some regular Joe out there concerned about Singapore.
Even the ordinary Joe that sincerely argues for the PAP is suspected, slammed and dunked as a PAP Propaganda tool.
This is their (PAP’s) own making.A kind of a reap what you sow thingy.
However, while they propagate for their benefit to stay in power, I do believe that there is an acute awareness in the PAP Camp of the many substantiated criticisms being hurled at them by the citizens via the net.
I see that SOME of the PAP MPs are people with deep convictions and conscience.
I am also seeing SOME positive changes in the attitude of the Govt towards the poor and unfortunate.
Lets hope that these are not mere strategies for the season.
Lets hope the character and the emotional strength of the SOME will influence the rest of the PAP to be more loyal to the constitution and justice of this blessed nation than to the Party.
My 99 cts worth and it is sure to rise by my next comment
)
Even the ordinary Joe that sincerely argues for the PAP is suspected, slammed and dunked as a PAP Propaganda tool.
This is their (PAP’s) own making.A kind of a reap what you sow thingy.
However, while they propagate for their own benefit to stay in power, I do believe that there is an acute awareness in the PAP Camp of the many substantiated criticisms being hurled at them by the citizens via the net.
I see that SOME of the PAP MPs are people with deep convictions and conscience.
I am also seeing SOME positive changes in the attitude of the Govt towards the poor and unfortunate.
Lets hope that these are not mere strategies for the season.
Lets hope the character and the emotional strength of the SOME will influence the rest of the PAP to be more loyal to the people, constitution and justice of this blessed nation than to the Party.
My 99 cts worth and it is sure to rise by my next comment
)
FriendlyStranger
I would personally welcome YoungPAP critique of my ideas.
I won’t call it ‘propaganda’ whatever the dictionary says.
Propaganda ought to refer to the biased engagement of issues to the point that one discounts counterarguments, or puts forth information that discounts it. The dictionary ought to be updated.
It matters not to me if critique comes from the YoungPAP or not. What matters is the point raised.
With regards to why there might be few who speak for the party online is because the even larger and apathetic majority in this nation speak for it by ignoring oppositional voices on the net. Amongst others, that is why the Tiananmen massacres could take place.
What is unseen has more value in discerning truth.
ed