THE Government has responded to an online letter from a reader to a newspaper, a move believed to be a first. Aptly, the subject of discussion was how it engages citizens on the Internet.
Mr Tan, 39, who declined to disclose his occupation, still feels the Government should engage netizens on the Internet beyond the current websites.
'Right now, the Government still has the prerogative to decide whether or not to respond, and what is an issue and what is not. It is not sufficient,' he said.
How do multiple platforms prevent the govt from having such prerogative?
How can the govt respond to many platforms and websites? They will be only sitting and surfing the web. Moreover, each reply is written and reviewed by at least dozens of people before publishing. I think our govt need to reply to queries, but also to be productivity in their actual function.
aiyah....common sense tells you gahment won't play in your football field because to do so means it legitimizes your football game, and it loses control. So if it wants to respond it will do so in its own football field. You have to make a decision if their football game is worth playing in.
'Because it is a relatively new medium, it would take time for government agencies to build up and develop the necessary capabilities to e-engage widely.' - Mica's corporate communications director Julia Hang
I am sick of hearing that the Internet is a relatively new medium. That's like saying mobile phones is a relatively new phenomenon. Saying that it's relatively new seems to be a reflection of how behind the times our goverment agencies are. Did they just discover it's existence yesterday?
paultango,
the keyword is 'relatively'. By using that word, a phenomenon that took place a century ago, can be 'new'. lol.
-----------------------------------------------
I agree it can be inefficient for the govt to engage people across multiple platforms. However, that doesn't stop the govt from creating a list of platforms (NOT THEIR OWN) that they would respond to.
When you post and comment on issues pertaining to the government, or any issue related to government, don't expect a response from, unless it's a request or an inquiry. Online forum is a forum, a chit chat amongst netizens, and if any of the G-men elects to join in and comment, then they're more than welcome.
By posting and expecting replies, it's antagonistic. Don't think it's the point of any forum or platform.
""DB is a minefield of shadow boxing as many monikers are fakes. Some could be non Singaporeans and some could be outside RD somewhere in timbuktu.
The govt will be responding to and engaging with phantom""
whats wrong with responding to and engaging with a phantom writer or an ant writer.the most important is the viewpoint given by the writer and whether it is worth discussing.why would the goverment always want to know the name of the writer or the poser behind a thread ,so that people may feel intimated?
January 29, 2009 Thursday, 04:34 AM
