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

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

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 )

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.

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.

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.