Who sets the agenda in Singapore?

This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Is there any doubt that the gahmen is the one who sets the agenda in Singapore?

The main stream gahmen controlled media is just one of the tools by which the gahmen achieves this objective. The relatively free-wheeling websites that regularly report and comment on Singapore issues via the internet are increasingly brought to heel under new media licensing regulations. Gigamole thinks the gahmen correctly anticipated that all the blustery protestations would eventually be dissipated and come to naught. And indeed it has. Will these new regulations change things? Or strengthen the gahmen's hand in setting the agenda? Only time will tell. But Gigamole thinks it will merely buy some time for the gahmen. Maybe that's all that's required. In time the websites will some way to stay beyond the reach of gahmen's control. In fact, it may in time become much more antagonistic and difficult for the gahmen to control. For the moment, perhaps that's enough.

But this is only part of the story. The bluster over the new media regulations was in fact a distraction from the more important issues that Singaporeans must face up to.

Until recently, we had only kinda guessed at big gahmens spying on the public. Mostly these were nice stories for telling in Hollywood movies. But the recent revelation by the American whistleblower Edward Snowden, about how extensive and intrusive the US gahmen had actually implemented this spying has brutally forced the issue into the public consciousness. Is this something that only affects Americans? Gigamole does not think so. The lack of any substantive response from other gahmens to these revelations is quite telling. In particular, note the absolute silence from the Singapore Gahmen. What has also been disappointing has been the absolute silence from our local activists. Maybe they have already been cowed by the new media regulations. But surely they must be concerned? Or maybe they are just concerned about their own websites? Surely our opposition party MPs must stand up and ask that million dollar question of our gahmen.... do they request information from Google, Twitter and Facebook, and our ISPs? Have they ever requested? Don't we want a categorical statement from the gahmen that they do not spy on us? And if they do conduct surveillance, what and who regulates the extent to which they can intrude into our internet lives?

How come no one is asking?

But again, this may also be just the tip of yet another iceberg. Peter Ludlow recently wrote a great opinion piece in the New York Times titled "The Real War on Reality" where he refers to an ongoing "epistemic warfare". Gigamole would really recommend you read this commentary.

Yes, gahmens do set the agenda. And they do this not only by controlling the main stream media.

HSA and the regulation of medical devices - an exercise in agenda setting?

The theories of agenda setting are well known, I believe, to all mass comms graduates as well as journalists. Although the formal theories were only formulated about 40 years ago, ideas that the media can influence public opinion have been recognized since the early part of the 20th century.

The recent brouhaha about the regulation of medical devices by the HSA can perhaps be seen in the context of agenda setting. That the media plays an important role in agenda setting is beyond doubt. How the agenda is set however depends on who plays the media. To the media savvy, the media becomes a collaborator in the shaping of public opinion. A media-savvy politician therefore gets a pretty smooth road.

Where HSA failed has been in not recognizing how important the management of public expectations was in the implementation of complex and public-sentiment sensitive policies such as the regulation of medical devices. By defaulting on this, it has willy-nilly allowed the media to set the agenda in a direction contrary to public policy. So, not only has the media been allowed to tell us what issues are important, but it is being allowed to tell us what opinion we should form  about the issue. Note the teaser on the front page of the Straits Times today - "Patients should worry about vanishing medical devices". Really? Vanishing medical devices?

Poor HSA CEO John Lim is in the hot seat now. It seems like it is the fashion nowadays to run down the CEOs! I am waiting for the day when someone flashes an old D&D picture of him on a sedan chair carried by half maked women! But it should be recognized that the move towards regulating medical devices had not been developed overnight, but has been on the stove for about a decade. During this decade, the policy has been deliberated and refined under the guidance of 2 Ministers of Health and 2 Board Chairmen. I guess the second team has been quite unlucky to be on watch when this policy was finally ready to be implemented. But seeing how the SMRT issue developed, it seems highly unlikely even this team will get any credit for the mess. So, sadly, it looks like CEO John Lim will be the one catching the ball.