MediaCorp had been roundly criticised by the public for excluding the Singapore Democratic Party from a pre-election studio forum that involved the PAP and other opposition parties. Then, on election night, viewers were astounded by MediaCorp's refusal to report the latest intelligence on the counting, even when confirmed by the candidates and carried by the Straits Times' digital outlets. Wits started calling CNA "Channel NewsAfter".

PACE said in its report:

"In terms of the coverage of breaking news, PACE commended MediaCorp for its extensive coverage of the General Election held in May 2011 and its round-the-clock updates on the campaign developments. The Committee also observed the effort put in by MediaCorp to provide balanced coverage of the 2011 General Election, which was especially useful with so many political parties contesting. However, the Committee commented that the presentation of election-related news could have been tightened and delivered more smoothly and professionally. Members also commented that while they understood the need for CNA to ensure that the results were verified before they were announced on air, the delay between announcements on other new media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and the updates on CNA did not reflect well on the latter as a national news channel."

PACE was set up in 1995 to provide feedback on the range and quality of English programming. Members are drawn from a cross section of society, including the arts, sports, academia, nongovernmental organisations and the private sector.

MediaCorp's reply, included in an annex to the report, said:

"CNA noted the comments that the presentation of election-related news could be tightened and delivered in a more professional manner. The channel explained that while viewers have a right to expect more out of presenters for such a high profile programme, the demands from a programme providing “live” coverage of the election results are greater than that of other programmes. The presenters had multiple duties during the programme, including rolling out information as it came in, analysing and interpreting results on the fly while liaising with several key production team members in the control room.

"CNA added that a key element in the coverage was the lack of predictability, not just of when and what results might be announced, but also the follow-up production treatment of the information, for example, the team had to decide whether the show would be crossing to on-site reporters to field reactions or to another location for other developments. In addition, there was also a need to be mindful of the choice of words, facial expressions and the ideas to be conveyed to viewers.

"With regard to the “delay between announcements on other new media platforms”, CNA explained that MediaCorp had taken the editorial stand to go with only the official results and Vote 2011 Singapore therefore announced only results announced by the Returning Officer."

MediaCorp's defence of its policy against reporting unconfirmed results remains puzzling. While responsible broadcasters should certainly avoid the kind of fiasco that American networks caused in the 2000 Presidential Election – when they prematurely declared the election over based on inaccurate exit polls –  there are well established ways for news channels to share intelligence with their viewers and listeners, in context and without misleading them.

The BBC, for example, sometimes prefaces news breaks with such lines as "Reuters is reporting that…", concluding with "We haven't been able to independently verify this report." This indicates to the audience that the news is coming from an ordinarily credible source, but that the BBC is not ready to state it as fact.

Of course, such a policy requires the broadcaster to be willing to attribute the news break to a competing news organisation. Broadcasters that put their audiences first are willing to do so. The main mental block for MediaCorp on election night was probably not the risk of misleading its audience, but its reluctance to attribute unconfirmed reports to the Straits Times (all of which turned out to be accurate). For several years, Caldecott Hill's false pride has made MediaCorp allergic to ever mentioning SPH outlets as a news source, despite the latter accounting for the bulk of Singapore's journalists.

Loh, who helped to create TOC in 2006, led the site's GE coverage. He left shortly after. Since then, he has been writing regularly for Yahoo! News. He is known for his passionate writing on social issues and progressive causes. His latest venture continues in that mould: he has an article appealing to new President Tony Tan to save Malaysian death row inmate Yong Vui Kong.

An article by Eric Tan (presumably the former Workers' Party CEC member) calls on the transport minister to consider opposition parties' ideas for improving Singapore's public transport system.

It is not yet clear how, if at all, Public House plans to distinguish itself from the more established TOC. But given Loh's experience in running an alternative group blog, it's safe to say that Public House is one work in progress that's worth watching.

However, even if Tan Cheng Bock is campaigning the hardest online, it appears to be Tan Jee Say who appeals most to Singapore's more critical netizens. Temasek Review endorsed him early in the campaign. Now, the godfather of Singapore's socio-political bloggers, Alex Au, has come out in support of the former civil servant:

"He may be a johnny-come-lately, but he really does hold certain deep convictions: about social equity, about the whole purpose of economic development, about the moral responsibility to lead a people in a certain direction that is more constructive than self-destructive, about the importance of respect for human rights and human life. When he speaks about conscience, he means it," writes Au in his Yawning Bread blog.

Ng E-Jay of SGPolitics has also endorsed Tan Jee Say: "Mr Tan Jee Say’s political ideals will serve Singapore well. He has a heart for the people. He represents change and progress, and the empowerment of the people."

The Online Citizen has not endorsed any candidate. One of its leading lights, Leong Sze Hian, is helping Tan Kin Lian. However, TOC's readers are most enamoured of Tan Jee Say. Of more than 2,200 people who took part in a TOC survey, Tan Jee Say polled more support than the other three candidates combined.

So has Tony Tan's groundbreaking attempt to reach out to bloggers fallen flat? Well, despite the risk of alienating TOC's base, its editor Ravi Philemon has declared that Tony Tan "may not be half as bad as most of the online world makes him out to be". In the solidly anti-government online environment, this is about the highest praise that any establishment figure could hope for.

“But there must be places… where people recognise … are reliable, where you can have a open debate, where different views are expressed, but it’s balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off with you can assume that it will make some sense,” he said.

He did not say how such spaces could form, or whether the government intended to create or facilitate such sites. Until recently, it has been pushing its official feedback portal, REACH, as the best place for citizens to engage the government. Last night, however, Lee made no mention of REACH, perhaps acknowledging that no official site can counteract the anti-government storm in cyberspace.

Mainstream news organisations should have a better chance at creating neutral, moderated forums. They start off with significant advantages, including the largest audience base and the resources to manage such sites professionally. But their success at creating credible online discussion platforms will depend on how much freedom they are granted by the government. Netizens are not likely to forget how Today axed Mr Brown as a columnist after the government voiced its displeasure at one of his pieces.

The most effective solution would be bottom-up projects, created independently by established bloggers with street-cred. Could Singapore’s socio-political bloggers, for so long seen as a thorn in the government’s side, be the answer to the PM’s prayers?

The idea is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Privately, several independent bloggers have voiced unease at the ugly mob behaviour that swamped cyberspace during the general election. The experience has sparked internal discussions about how best to manage readers’ comments, in particular, since that’s where irrationality has run riot.

There are also established bloggers who are no longer content to converse only among the converted. They want to widen the online debate so that it does not attract only anti-government voices. (I've made a similar point in an earlier piece.)

Don’t be surprised, therefore, if you see some of Singapore’s influential independent bloggers creating new platforms for national debate in the coming months, either by developing new websites or by reorienting their existing ones.

But even if they build them, will government sympathisers and spokesmen come? One thing that will have to change is the PAP’s politics of intolerance, which has contributed to the polarisation of debate in Singapore. Its “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy has kept establishment types away from pluralistic spaces. (The classic illustration was the PAP’s refusal to take part in The Online Citizen’s multi-party forum before the general election.)

For example, the typical establishment individual would probably refuse to contribute an article to an independent medium that also carries opposition party voices. In Singapore’s political culture, he would assume that any such medium would be blacklisted by people at the top, and that anyone who participates risks being tainted by association. Or, perhaps it is simply that most establishment spokesmen lack the confidence to engage in debate on a truly level playing field.

So allergic has the establishment been to bloggers that, as recently as 2009, public universities were compelled to distance themselves from a workshop organised to promote responsible blogging, originally planned with their support.

Thus, PM Lee’s wish for open, balanced and reasonable online spaces requires a cultural change on the part of the establishment as well. The government will need to find within itself the capacity to respect the role of independent websites as convenors of Singapore’s online politics.

Unedited transcript from PM's National Day Rally speech:

Engagement online, I think we need to learn to do it better. It’s not easy to do, but it’s important because the digital media is continuing to grow in importance. Five years ago, Youtube was insignificant. Facebook didn’t exist. All you had was Mr Brown. Today, Mr Brown has a lot of competition. We in government have a lot of competition, and we have to be able to operate in that space.

It’s not easy because it’s anonymous, it’s chaotic, it’s unfiltered, unmoderated, and so the medium lends itself to many negative views and ridiculous untruths. Any number of them. I won’t repeat one because otherwise you may misunderstand and think it’s true. But if you just open at random you will see them.

And we have to do our best to counter this, to prevent untruths from circulating and being repeated 5, 10, 20 times, from leading people astray, and after a while, you’ve heard it so often, you can’t remember where you saw it, but it must be true; but it’s not.

So our ministers have to get better at this and you know many ministers are blogging now, Facebook; and they have to communicate in a different medium, and convey nuance poiicy, intentions, explanations, in a more personal way, engaging people. But it’s not just the ministers, the government as a whole has to be more active and adept, engaging Singaporeans online.

We can’t be in every corner of cyberspace because there are a lot of cowboy towns out there. But there must be places which grow where people recognise that these are places which are reliable, where you can have a open debate, where different views are expressed, but it’s balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off with you can assume that it will make some sense. Whether it’s right or wrong, we have to consider but it’s not rubbish.

So we’ve got to get there, be in cyberspace and use it constructively to explain issues, to shape opinions, to rally support, and to make Singapore work better.

The most liberal jurisdictions, such as the United States, use the "clear and present danger" test, which outlaws only the most extreme speech. At the other extreme, judges could apply the "inherent tendency" test, finding someone in contempt even when there is only a remote, fanciful possibility that his words may undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Until recently, the "inherent tendency" test was used in Singapore.

Writing in Inter Se, justice law clerks Justin Yeo and Calvin Liang note that in the Shadrake case, the Court of Appeal avoided either extreme and instead went for the "real risk" test, whereby "the court concerned must make an objective decision as to whether or not that particular statement would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, as assessed by the effect of the impugned statement on the average reasonable person."

Shadrake was judged to have scandalised the court in his book, Once a Jolly Hangman. Although the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, it differed from some of the High Court's findings and clarified the "real risk" test.

Contempt of court is a common law offence, but it is currently being drafted into the statute books. Professor Kevin Tan, interviewed by Inter Se, said that legislation is "a good way to go" and hoped that a "real likelihood" test would be inserted into the Bill: "In other words, the words uttered or written should have a real likelihood of bringing the courts into disrepute or challenging its independence."

Contempt of court, together with defamation, are the laws that most frequently ensnare the media and other commentators in Singapore.

To become a member of OGP, countries must adopt an "Open Government Declaration",  develop a national action plan, and commit to independent reporting on their progress.

Governments must also exhibit a commitment to open government in four key areas. Any government can join OGP at any time once they have demonstrated that they meet these minimum criteria. Based on these criteria, 79 countries are said to qualify already for membership. Singapore is not yet on the list.

The four criteria are:

1. Fiscal Transparency

The timely publication of essential budget documents forms the basic building blocks of budget accountability and an open budget system.

2. Access to Information

An access to information law that guarantees the public’s right to information and access to government data is essential to the spirit and practice of open government.

3. Disclosures Related to Elected or Senior Public Officials

Rules that require public disclosure of income and assets for elected and senior public officials are essential to anti-corruption and open, accountable government.

4. Citizen Engagement

Open Government requires openness to citizen participation and engagement in policymaking and governance, including basic protections for civil liberties.

The initiative was announced in Washington DC last month and will be formally inaugurated in September.

"Rather than seeing citizens and civil society groups as competitors, governments from the North and South asserted that private actors, commercial and non-profit, are essential partners in solving complex social problems. And this requires a new social contract, a shift from eGov to WeGov," writes Aleem Walji in his World Bank blog. 

After coming face to face with the presidential hopeful, the persistently irreverent Mr Brown tweeted, "Dr Tony Tan not only has presidential hair, he has really good skin." At the press conference, TOC lived up to its progressive values by asking Tan for his views on the use of defamation law against critics, and on the exercise of the presidential pardon in death penalty cases. Leong, Singapore's most numerate citizen journalist, asked Tan how much money he stood to lose by giving up his GIC and SPH posts.

I am told that Tony Tan's aides decided on yesterday's invitation list independently; it was not orchestrated out of the Istana. But as the presumptive government-endorsed candidate, Tan's move could become a landmark in relations between the state and Singapore’s intrepid and often unruly alternative online media. Until now, the government has refused to treat any of these sites as engaging in bona fide journalism. Bloggers have long complained that government departments do not respond to requests for information. When The Online Citizen organised a pre-election forum for all political parties to share their ideas last December, the People’s Action Party would have nothing to do with it. TOC highlighted the ruling party’s conspicuous absence by leaving an empty chair on stage. The election regulations’ ban on campaigning on the “cooling off” day and polling day also discriminate against citizen journalism: only licenced news organisations are exempted.

The decision by the Tony Tan Campaign to loop-in bloggers is undoubtedly one result of May’s groundbreaking general election. Online media were obviously influential, and sections of the establishment may have decided that they have no choice but to do business with them. Tony Tan's likely challengers, Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Kin Lian, have lost no time in courting alternative media coverage.

If the government were to follow the presidential hopefuls' example, it would be a calculated risk. While officials probably still can’t stand TOC’s guts, such sites represent the more rational and reasonable end of the ideological spectrum in cyberspace. TOC, together with Alex Au’s Yawning Bread and some other individual blogs, have been noticeably pushing for more credible online journalism within their extremely limited means.

Most importantly, they have shown some commitment to accountability. They operate openly rather than behind cloaks of pseudonymity, they are not above correcting factual errors when these are pointed out to them, and they practice either pre- or post-moderation of comments to keep discussions within certain bounds. Of course, if government wants an echo chamber, it will remain bitterly disappointed by the alternative media. If, however, the goal is to divert some of the cyber chatter from flowing underground and into the gutter, it makes eminent sense to start taking Singapore’s more serious citizen journalists more seriously. Even if they are not as experienced as professional journalists and lack the reach of mainstream media, they can at least be treated as unusually engaged members of the Singapore family. This message was not lost on TOC, which posted on Facebook, “Foreign press not invited to Dr Tony Tan’s press conference. TOC is.”

This morning’s move is something of a leap of faith. Assuming it is not a one-off and is instead a sign of things to come, there are bound to be teething problems. Each side will probably start off with unrealistically high expectations of the other. If these expectations are not moderated, the experiment could end prematurely and sullenly. Bloggers will have to understand that the huge and complex machinery of government is not going to transform itself overnight. Indeed, a blogger-friendly media engagement policy is probably easier to implement for a small and discrete Presidential Election campaign office than it would be for any government ministry.

On the establishment’s part, officials need to be clear that the success of the experiment cannot be measured by how quickly bloggers and their readers are led to the “right” answers or to a “consensus”, but by the inclusiveness and civility of the conversation: as long as more and more people are trying to persuade one another – rather than ignoring or shouting down one another – such engagement between government and alternative media would be strengthening Singapore’s governance and civic life.

The workshop was organised by the Community of Information Technology Experts, a group of IT and legal experts offering online-related legal information to individual Internet users and small businesses. Read the full report and download presentation slides by clicking here.

If you would like to learn more about the do's and don't of blogging, you can watch the videos of a 2009 workshop. The workshop featured seasoned practitioners such as Alex Au of Yawning Bread and Choo Zheng Xi of The Online Citizen, as well as a legal primer by law professor Kevin Tan. Click here for the videos.

DAN GILLMOR

Mediactive: Why We Should All be

Participants in Media, not just Consumers

Synopsis: We're in an age of information overload, and too much of what we watch, hear and read is mistaken, deceitful or even dangerous. Yet we can take control and make media serve us – all of us – by being active consumers and participants.

Date: 28 March 2011 Time: 10am – 12noon

Venue: LT 11, Blk NS2, NTU

To register: click here or email siddeeqa@ntu.edu.sg

Gillmor is renowned as probably the first journalist to have a professional blog, while he was a technology writer in Silicon Valley’s San Jose Mercury News. His first book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People (2004), was highly influential, urging journalists to shift from “lecture” mode to “conversation” mode in their dealings with the public.

On his new book, Mediactive, Gillmor says, “My goal with this project is to help turn passive media consumers into active users — as participants at every step of the process starting with what we read.”

He is so committed to this new way of doing business that the project lives under a Creative Commons licence and can be downloaded freely as a PDF from his website. However, for a more comfortable read, you can pick up a copy of the properly bound book at the book talk.

Gillmor is visiting Singapore next week as a guest of the Temasek Foundation – NTU Asia Journalism Fellowship and the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.

Next Monday’s book talk is organised by NTU Libraries.

CITE is supported by the Singapore Internet Research Centre (SiRC), which is hosted at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University.

CITE offers online-related legal information to individual Internet users and small businesses, whose financial circumstances and lack of resources may prohibit them from obtaining legal information elsewhere.

As part of CITE continuous efforts in raising users' awareness, we are conducting a blogging workshop on Saturday, 12 March 2011 with the following aims:

1) To educate bloggers about the legal and political parameters of blogging the General Elections in Singapore. 2) Participants are to produce a set of guidelines that will be posted online for other bloggers.

The workshop is designed for students, writers and editors who are not professional journalist who are not fully aware of the legal and political parameters of blogging before and during the General Elections.

For more information, visit: www.sirc.ntu.edu.sg

For registration, please log in here.

Registration closes on 4 March.