Well, a noteworthy move on the part of some MIWs to engage the social media in order to connect with citizens, but some thoughts I'll like to share in this regard.
Merely engaging the social media does not necessarily mean connected to citizens, it only means you're connected to the Internet. If this does not translate to real engagement through all-rounded, impartial debates, the mere action of having a Facebook account for instance does not amount to much significance. It also does not necessarily mean that one could garner overwhelming support when elections come calling. For instance, one of the earliest MIW users of social media is Mr George Yeo. But look at what happened to him this election? It goes to show that just by having a social media network account isn't sufficient, the real substance of cyberspace engagement is.
Sadly, even for some of the MIWs already using social media, there appears to be a deliberate attempt to 'listen to only niceties, shut out the noises', as illustrated in netizens' complaints about some MIWs deleting comments which are complaints but nonetheless still constructive feedback while leaving only those 'praises' intact. Linked to these points, if there is a lopsided preference for particular feedbacks online, then what's the point of having such social media in the first place? Some netizens were reporting about MIW supporters calling opposition supporters nasty names such as 'dogs' and those comments were apparently tolerated and kept intact on those MIWs' Facebook wall posts. If this sort of favouritism, which breeds polarisation amongst various factions online, is not eradicated, what's the use of MIWs engaging the social media then? It would seem as if the MIWs are only there online to engage their supporters, feed their own ego with the 'praises' and 'likes' on their wall posts, yet effectively shutting out those who're sincere in giving constructive feedback which may sound negative but still amount to useful comments nonetheless.
I would venture further by saying that as far as social media is concerned, the opposition parties appear to be still ahead of the MIWs in the game. They in the first place had to engage the social media out of pragmatic 'choice' (in fact, they don't have any choice due to the monopolisation of the mainstream media by the MIWs). By stark contrast, for long the MIWs had always cast a wary eye towards the cyberspace which is viewed as sources of dissent and of course, 'noise' as they called it. Now that after GE2011, they saw the utility of social media which has helped the opposition parties a long way and thus changed tack to keep up with the game. As economics theory dictates, the 'first-mover advantage' has already been taken. Frankly speaking, I personally found opposition parties' politicians more engaging and tolerant of different viewpoints than MIWs are. Perhaps some of you might think otherwise.
Engaging social media notwithstanding, if the MIWs think of engaging social media merely as a 'show' that they're concerned with cyberspace sentiments but are not truly intent on making it a platform for influencing their policymaking process, then I would conclude that the move could tantamount to backfire on them. First of all, perhaps, the MIWs would need to alter their perceptions of netizens and not see them (including myself) as 'noises' but worthy partners to engage with online in order to convince people of their intention to engage the social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment