The Primer: S'pore tops International e-Government Survey
Reading today’s news brought me mixed feelings about the state of cyber-literacy in Singapore, and its general growth and direction in my country and the region. First was the elation at learning that Singapore had topped an international e-Government study conducted by Japan’s Waseda University to measure the different rates that countries are integrating public services and making them available online to make our citizen’s transactions with the state more seamless and effortless.
In topping the class of 2008, Singapore trumps even the more ‘seasoned’ first-world nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom as well as Sweden and Japan. By so doing, we make the unique mark of being the first Asian nation to head the pack.
I'm not gloating at this feat, but I do think it's a bright moment for a country that gained its independence no more than 44 years ago, and devoid of any natural resources except for its human population, embarked on a journey to transform its society to be on time in the global knowledge economy.
The outcome is a measure of the public service’s strides in integrating itself into a more-or-less homologous e-government system to fast track what would have been paper-logged processes, such as our COE (Certificate of Entitlement) bidding system, the No-Filing Service by the IRAS (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) or the Electronic Road pricing (REP) system, among others. Whether we agree with the functions of these systems is, I believe, a matter to be deliberated separately altogether. The crux of the matter here is (in my humble opinion) the way these former legacy systems have been ported into the digital sphere to create more efficient transactions.
As William D Eggers, author of Government 2.0would argue, a seamless government isn't something to be take for granted. From an academic, theoretical (even commonsensical) standpoint, it's expected that government bureaucracies, by the very nature of their machineries, would be replete with countless agencies with massive overlap of responsibilities (Eggers, 2005, p.35).
This isn't an issue that's solved by the introduction of IT alone as true effectiveness occurs only when different levels of government are knitted together into one digital fabric such that whether I'm a lay citizen hoping to apply for some type of permit or a hopeful entrepreneur looking to set up a new venture, I don't have to run the risk of, in the words of Eggers (2005, p.35), ‘negotiating multiple levels of government, none with any ability or inclination to cooperate and ease my passage through the regulatory maze.'
As he goes on to elaborate, any government that's cruising along the information superhighway and hoping to change to an acceleration lane must surmount the following four challenges (2005, p.38):
1. Unify disparate (and sometimes legacy) information systems together;
2. Turn the mind-boggling mass of data into knowledge (and thus, power);
3. Share this knowledge and integrated-expertise across government; and
4. Package and disseminate this joined-up packet of information for the public to facilitate their participation and online engagement.
Check. Check. Check. Check. All four aspects are either well in position, or are work in progress and nearing completion. OK. I may be stretching this a bit out of patriotic fervor, but you get the hint. System-wise, we're on the right track.
Where’s the evidence, you ask?
One's the 2006 initiative to consolidate government-wide shared corporate services so that HR and finance functions would be centrally administered to the ministries, organs of state and statutory boards in the country. The move, according to the 2007 APEC Economic Policy Report, is expected to save some SGD4 million (USD2.67 million) annually in taxpayer’s monies. Another encouraging move is the 2004 implementation of the No Wrong Door policy to ensure that we wouldn't have to suffer from being passed through the revolving doors of one agency to another when managing complex issues. At the very least, when the issue is a cross-department matter, the policy requires that the receiving agency coordinate between the agencies involved and provide an integrated reply. Critics will say that this is effective only on paper, but my argument is that at least we have a forward-looking policy in place. Now, what's left is to engage the human factor in the equation to fine tune its efficiency.
Conundrum: The Development of Dialogue 2.0
So it seams that from a structural point of view, we've a Internet-plugged machinery in place to facilitate a rather seamless transaction between the citizenry, businesses, and the government. But from a systems perspective, this is just one chunk of the whole – the hardware, as I will frame it for the purpose of this discussion. What’s needed is also the software element of the equation. So far what we've covered are the business end of the system, which Singapore is faring well.
However, one aspect that will take more time to be nurtured and grown is the conversation, or Dialogue 2.0 aspect of the picture. From time to time, as if to remind everyone that true e-Governance still has some way to go, we'll see forum letters in the newspapers from disgruntled members of public who're piqued by the seemingly high-handedness or non-responsiveness of certain public agencies. Is this merely a technical issue to be sorted out between the agencies involved, or is this the birth pangs of a larger challenge that's facing our public service: How citizens should be engaged and involved in a dialogue about public policy matters that is fueled by the Web 2.0 explosion?
In a recent interview I did with Christopher Ranjitkar, a Boston-based PR professional, he had this to say about the increasing public demand for dialogue with the government, '…in new media, anybody and everybody can participate, [so] it requires a new level of transparency. For instance, everybody holds the Obama campaign in a very positive light in terms of its communication strategy. You know, even before he went to the White House, he was already tweeting. His campaign is also very plugged in, and his Facebook page, for example, has millions of followers. You know, not only does he have Facebook groups, but simply having people who are willing to change their [Facebook] statuses just to remind one another to go and vote shows what a great job he and his campaign has organized in using new media to engage the public. And I know I’m repeating this, but because the Internet is providing a new level of accessibility to information, it’s also going to demand a new level of transparency [from the government].’
Eggers (2005, p.129) reinforces this idea when he says that transparency generates accountability, which in tern generates pressure for improved performance, which in turn [ought to] lead to better performance. The overarching concept is that, never mind how many people actually bother to go to government websites or portals to engage in a conversation, or to scrutinize official information. The small percentage that will go, together with the scrutiny by the media and business community would provide enough oversight to keep the public service on its toes.
Yet, apart from the ‘usual’ official government websites and conventional portals, it's also necessary to consider the rising influence of social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter or MySpace and their impact on creating and supporting open dialogue without any intermediation (as the Obama campaign demonstrates). Governments, says Scott (2007, p.13), are especially prone to focusing on the formalized channels and traditional media almost exclusively to get their main messages across to the public. Granted that they may be big enough, and their news so compelling that the media may still be the primary mouthpiece, but the rules of PR and communication are rapidly changing and organizations need to shift their thinking from mainstream marketing to the masses (in this respect) to a strategy of reaching the vast numbers of hitherto under-served audiences via the Web (Scott, 2007 pp. 25-26).
According to the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore’s factsheet, the domestic Internet penetration in the country is about 76 percent (the CIA Factsheet on Singapore lists the country as having 3.1 million internet users), and mobile phone penetration per 1,000 population is a whopping 1,225. Other figures from the IDA are just as telling:
1. In 2007, close to 70 percent of those who engage in online communication activities like Instant Messaging fall within the 15yrs to 34yrs age group.
2. In the same period, 35 percent of this group are also actively engaged in online social networking (a rough estimate puts this population at 1.1 million).
These statistics all point towards a growing Web-engaged population that may soon demand more than the usual media messaging but also a heavier government presence on the social networking scene as this form of communication becomes more mainstream.
But this isn't a smooth-sailing journey. In the same newspaper that carried the news about Singapore topping the e-Governance survey was a story about soldiers being discouraged from forming online military groups on social networking platforms like Facebook. According to the news report, there're currently some 17 known military groups on the platform and these are mostly formed by soldiers to stay in touch with members of their own units, and to share photographs and information about training, in-camp experiences and related activities. The concern of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) is that classified or sensitive information and photos may be posted online, which end up undermining national security issues.
This concern is certainly valid and critical. But one can also see the apparent struggle to maintain organizational policies while not infringing on what may be an individual’s right to association or speech and action. MINDEF’s ‘discouragement’ of its personnel from forming Facebook groups doesn't constitute an outright ban, but where the line is drawn isn't clear as well. Ignoring the clear cut cases of violations of secrecy regulations or the disclosure of confidential materials, where do those who form Facebook (or other social media platforms) groups but don't violate any regulations fall? Are these actions also frowned upon as well?
Ultimately, perhaps the question here isn't whether it is viable for MINDEF (or any other public or private organizations) to institute such policies that attempt to curtail social networking, but what it can do to advise its personnel about how they should converse about the organization.
Of course, from the onset, there should be a strict policy on what can and cannot be disclosed, and in this case, personnel should be made aware of the implications of disclosing information or photos that are confidential and could jeopardize security or violate official secrecy regulations. Other useful guidelines (adapted from Debbie Weil’s The Corporate Blogging Book, 2006, pp. 43-44) are:
1. Warnings against posting defamatory content (against the organization or specific colleagues);
2. Warnings against networking on official time (made so possible today because of Web-enabled smart phones); and
3. The requirement to identify oneself clearly in the postings and state that the views are personal opinions and not representative of the organization.
The question here, for which there is no simple solution to be offered, is whether it is actually a more enlightened approach for even security-conscious government departments to try to develop Internet and social networking guidelines that allow them to nurture and control the process instead of trying to gag it – an event that could well be a losing battle given the expansiveness and ubiquity of the Web and its applications.
As Weil (2006, p.55) puts it, the key thing is [perhaps] for the organization to move in direction of becoming part of the dialogue that's taking place on the Internet, which, at the same time, provides a window by which the public may peer into the organization and participate with it in shaping some of its policies, products or services. At the very least, what's created is a broader and positive narrative that engenders support, understanding and clout for the organization in question.
The Plot Thickens: Perspectives of the Broader Socio-Political Environment
But despite all the arguments that are so unmistakably pro-dialogue, and towards pro-development of corporate communication policies that take into cognizance the effects of social networking, a sinister development in the wider geopolitical region is set to severely dampen any overtures into the benefits of Web 2.0 and all the talk about hosting open conversations. This is because of a most unfortunate kind of convergence on the Web: the kind between social networking and the rise of extremist radicalization.
The third Straits Times article ‘A Growing Terror Weapon,’ completes the unlikely and ironic triumvirate of articles all centering on the diverse reach and impact of Web 2.0 and social networking, but I fear it is this last story that will have the deepest reach of all.
The article talks about the explosion of Internet usage since 2000 by extremist groups in Southeast Asia where they have cultivated a very sophisticated online presence to spread their radicalized brand of politics and violence, for recruiting of members, as well as for disseminating tradecraft ‘e-books’ that teaches anything from cyber-warfare and computer hacking, to the assembly of homemade bombs.
An addendum to the main article goes on to state that regional governments are facing both a political and social quagmire in terms of dealing with these radicalized groups. ‘Some governments don't want to appear un-Islamic by coming down hard on Islamist groups, and some don't want to appear undemocratic by seeming to rein in freedom of expression in cyberspace,’ the report said. This situation isn't helped by the fact that freedom of information or speech regulations, especially as they relate to the Internet, as well as cyberspace security laws, are interpreted differently from country to country. This has made a unified response to the situation tricky and daunting.
Unfortunately, such a situation may only lead governments, in the meantime, to err on the side of caution when examining their own domestic civil service and social networking policies. But in the face of the growing radicalized narratives that are spawning in social networking platforms across the Internet in the region, could it be a better approach to focus on the big picture and concentrate on shaping the overarching narrative in the public domain, where energy is channeled to the creation and sustaining of a wider theme that stands for moderation, community and racial togetherness and the rejection of radicalization and violence? Could a sustained presence of such a ‘positive’ theme in the regional Web 2.0 environment act to drown out the ‘destructive’ narratives that are present?
Any strategy in this direction is definitely going to involve both a grassroots and also what Clark Strategic Communications CEO Dorie Clark calls a ‘grass-tops’ approach (Public Affairs, PR and Governance 2.0 – Part II). She said, ‘…the common thing we’ve been hearing is how we can mobilize the grassroots. They're sort of the regular people. The new vogue is called the grass-tops. This is a much smaller number of people but they’re the ones who are really influential. For instance, if I need to get a bill passed, I need to get the Senate President to support it. The grassroots approach is how we can get 1000 people from her district to write her letters, or do a rally to show their support. A grass-tops strategy is, who gives her money? Who did she go to high school with? Who influences her? What labor unions endorse her? You know, those people who exert a deeper influence.’
So as a public affairs strategy, we'd need to consider this element too. It's worth noting how the British government had, in the immediate aftermath of the 7 July 2005 bombings in London, dedicated a major part of their communication efforts (through messages by strategic leaders like PM Blair, as well as other government officials) to protect, include, and identify with the peaceful Muslim community in Britain who were in danger of reprisal attacks by misguided vigilantes. As the British have so aptly demonstrated, ameliorating the possibly strained racial or religious relations, in light of today’s overriding threat of militant terrorism, must be a key priority of our communication efforts to counter radicalization, as well as racial and ideological polarization.
As I've covered earlier, with so much ‘chatter’ going on around the Web, it's necessary to consider how this medium may be used to counter the narratives. In this light, we could take a leaf out of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. Dorie recalled that what started off as seemingly innocuous online Howard Dean Meetups (made up of people who were supportive of Howard Dean) – made possible through the social networking site run by Meetup.com – suddenly took on a life of its own, growing from some 800 people across the country to some 30,000 people meeting nationwide one Wednesday a month. With the creative marketing of critical messages, it's possible for something on the Web to just explode and go ‘viral’ (read more about this in the interview with Dorie Clark).
When that happens, it'll become pivotal to tap on the growing movement and harness it towards tangible activities. Dorie said, ‘… we began devising activities for them [online supporter who were meeting on the ground] to do at the [rally] events, so they would phone voters in Iowa, or they would write letters to voters in New Hampshire. You know, it was sort of tangible things that they could do to make a difference. So this was the crux: It was way of translating the sort of theoretical support we had online into concrete action.’
That must be part of the issues that government and cyber-security policy-makers must contemplate.
Conclusion
Web 2.0 is clearly a double-edged sword, with the notion of dialogue that can inform two diametrically opposed ends: civic participation in governance, and social strife and fracture along racial, religious, political and ideological lines. This perhaps reveals the infinite expanses of a cyberspace that we've not really been able to tame.
In the final analysis, do we blog or not? Should governments engage in social networking or not? Where are the security safeguards The fact of the matter is that even if we don't blog or engage in social networking on a personal, corporate and even wider ideological level, there are elements that are hard at work doing so. Since these mediums are but tools to sustain two-way conversation, then perhaps the answer lies in the final conversation that generates the most traction and gravitas online. So, there isn’t much of a choice but to be engaged in the dialogue isn’t it?
In this case, may the better dialogue prevail!
Selected References
Eggers, W. D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Weil, D. (2006). The Corporate Blogging Book: Absolutely everything you need to know to get it right. New York: The Penguin Group.
Scott, D, M. (2007). The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing, and Online Media to Reach Buyers Directly. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.