<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Aug 15, 2009
NEW P65 BLOG
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Change a big let-down
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->IT IS disappointing that after 21/2 years of poor readership, the P65 Members of Parliament have chosen to cut their losses and minimise their presence on the website they started to engage the public.
An integral part of any public engagement strategy is flexibility. I am surprised that such a large group of MPs was unable to commit more time and effort to generate meaningful online debate.
With the MPs now likely to have less of a presence on the P65 blog, its fate is sealed. It will take a stretch of imagination to believe that those asked to contribute to the P65 blog are in no way affiliated to the People's Action Party (PAP), given that the website was started by its MPs.
Given this perception, why should members of the public want to read these views when they can get the same in the government's feedback channel Reach, or Young PAP?
Sadly, the stated intention of the new P65 blog, to steer clear of supporting any political party, further entrenches the stereotype of a depoliticised youth with the implication being: Leave politics to the politicians.
It is wrong to suggest that younger Singaporeans should be encouraged to voice only non-partisan 'constructive criticism'. This amorphous distinction between constructive and destructive criticism has no place in a democratic culture which respects an individual's right to voice his opinion, regardless of how sharply or passionately it is framed.
Choo Zheng Xi
Manhattan, New York
NEW P65 BLOG
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Change a big let-down
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->IT IS disappointing that after 21/2 years of poor readership, the P65 Members of Parliament have chosen to cut their losses and minimise their presence on the website they started to engage the public.
An integral part of any public engagement strategy is flexibility. I am surprised that such a large group of MPs was unable to commit more time and effort to generate meaningful online debate.
With the MPs now likely to have less of a presence on the P65 blog, its fate is sealed. It will take a stretch of imagination to believe that those asked to contribute to the P65 blog are in no way affiliated to the People's Action Party (PAP), given that the website was started by its MPs.
Given this perception, why should members of the public want to read these views when they can get the same in the government's feedback channel Reach, or Young PAP?
Sadly, the stated intention of the new P65 blog, to steer clear of supporting any political party, further entrenches the stereotype of a depoliticised youth with the implication being: Leave politics to the politicians.
It is wrong to suggest that younger Singaporeans should be encouraged to voice only non-partisan 'constructive criticism'. This amorphous distinction between constructive and destructive criticism has no place in a democratic culture which respects an individual's right to voice his opinion, regardless of how sharply or passionately it is framed.
Choo Zheng Xi
Manhattan, New York
