For many youngsters who don’t read newspapers, it might come as a surprise to them that not too long ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find newspaper photos of the huge crowds at opposition rallies. And some PAP rallies would be poorly attended (save the grassroots members), but you wouldn’t see that highlighted in mainstream media either.

That snippet from the past doesn’t really matter any more, because mainstream media may no longer be the main voice in shaping public opinion, especially among the new generation of voters. There are just so many sources of information that we can now simply access from our handphones – you don’t even need to sit at a PC these days.

Moreover, this upcoming 2011 elections is going to be very different from the ones in the past, thanks to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Opinions are now galvanized far faster, thanks to the real-time updating of our Facebook or Twitter walls. Where in the past, people relied on blog aggregators (remember www.tomorrow.sg?) to compile the latest blog postings (rather inefficiently), all that’s needed now is for people to keep rebroadcasting by hitting “Like” or “Retweet”. For many companies, they now have to ability to broadcast straight to their target audiences on top of going through their advertising or PR agencies.

And power to the political parties that are able to harness the new found capabilities of social media.

But hang on, the problem here is that the PAP appears to be ill-equipped, or perhaps inexperienced at using social media. No, I don’t consider politicians who happily add everyone on Facebook to be very online-savvy.

Mr Brown has pointed out some strange output from them on Twitter and Facebook over the past week.

MP who refers to herself in the third person.

Odd outreach on Twitter to promote their FB page, using Ms Tin Pei Ling (poorly) as a hook

SM Goh Chok Tong making a FB tongue-in-cheek joke on Ms Tin that few people grasped.

Of course, the rest of the online community was more than happy to share these snafus. There will always be a lot of scrutiny on the PAP, and their recent use of social media to date leaves much to be desired.

My personal experience with their social media team lasted just one day.

I added myself to the official PAP Facebook page and was stunned annoyed to be hit by 18 Facebook postings today. They ranged from the interesting (3 new candidates announced, but I didn’t bother to read) to the mundane (George Yeo had lunch with some bloggers) to the unnecessary (grassroots walkabout photos)

Halfway through the day, I posted a request on their FB page to reduce their frequency of posts, but they either didn’t see it or they didn’t care.

After the last three posts of the day, I promptly “unliked” the page and my News Wall was free from spam again.

Now like I’ve said many times, in general, I’m not angry with the PAP (I see their point on many issues that others raise outcries over) nor do I like the Opposition.

The question here is “What should a PAP Facebook page do to engage its audience?”

One great thing I learnt in the past few years is that any successful marketing (yes, a PAP FB page is considered marketing) is knowing your target audience first. And what kind of audiences do we have online today?

The Irate and the Upset: Consider that many the opinions being spread around are by angry writers who appear to have a big axe to grind with the Gahmen. Often, there is no reasoning with these people, no matter what you say, they have little good things to say about the Gahmen. You see these guys cropping up everywhere, especially on the comment threads. They often annoy me because they often don’t see the bigger picture before they go on their rants.

The Satirists : Mr Brown gets my respect, not only because he and his friends always come up with hilarious takes on current issues, but his observations are on the dot. In a country like ours where there isn’t really much one can do about the system, one way of subverting it is simply to have a good laugh about it.

The Intellectuals: These are the folks who probably comment or post the least, but think the most about what they see and read online.

The Apathetic: I probably belong to this group, though this posting kind of proves otherwise. I think I used to be cynical, but now I’m just resigned.

I’m not going to suggest which audience the PAP or other political parties should try to engage online, but it does have to realize that any of these audiences are probably more opinionated than the average joe that they meet during their weekend grassroot visits.

Law Minister Shanmugan was just quoted that people should not be distracted by “Internet chatter” and that they can decide what the real issues are.. Well times have changed – Internet chatter IS becoming public opinion. It’s no longer just coffeeshop talk limited to social circles that do not mix with each other.

The big problem is that when public opinion is shaped by ill-informed ideas or emotional outbursts, there’s no other alternative in reshaping it since mainstream media’s coverage/commentary will be late by a day or two. What scares me is the level of xenophobia or anti-establishment sentiments that I see on the FB postings of younger friends.

The bigger problem, which most people don’t seem to realize, is that most of the “Internet chatter” on Facebook is actually kept from public view. It’s simply not possible to search and do a statistical study of the comments that are being posted in thousands of private FB comment threads (unlike Twitter, where it appears most tweets are in the public domain). It is also not possible for PAP or any other institution to befriend everyone on FB. So even if trouble is brewing within the FB community, it won’t surface till it reaches critical mass.

What I am personally looking for online, is a robust intellectual debate among the political candidates and wannabes about the issues that concern people today.

Isn’t that what the elections process is all about? It’s not just about dangling carrots or using fear appeal (“Imagine what would happen if those other guys got voted in!”), but persuading people why you should vote for them using reason, logic and emotion.

Having televised debates on Channelnewsasia is a nice start, but like many other folks, I no longer watch free-to-air television. I did try watching one episode last night but it was in Mandarin and I got lost in translation.

The Internet is a great platform to engage people and fire up their imaginations, but so far, the ruling party seems ill-prepared to take advantage of the free tools available to them. To be fair, I haven’t seen anything interesting from the opposition that makes me want to “like” their pages either.

It’s easy for people to “like” your Facebook page, but one has to take a lot of effort and care in engaging the community which can leave anytime it wishes.

Although I am a product of the local education system, I continue to think that it is broken and unable to give our children the holistic education that they deserve, despite many uses of the word “holistic” by educators and the authorities.

Recently, MM Lee became the first minister (in my memory) to actually admit that the primary school admission system is un-meritocratic.  

“PSLE levels playing field”

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has acknowledged that admission to primary school is not meritocratic, since a child’s background plays a role in it.

‘That’s inevitable in any society,’ he said after a visit to Raffles Girls’ Primary School (RGPS) on Friday afternoon, where he disclosed that he had visited Punggol Primary the previous day.

‘At the primary stage, the choice is not made in a uniform way. You have a brother there or sister there, your father or mother is an alumnus, and so on. So it’s not meritocratic; it’s based on the social class of your parents, whether they went into better schools.’

Still, Mr Lee argued that the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) levels the playing field, allowing bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend good schools.

‘The important thing is that, at Primary 6, there should be a sorting out. And those who missed going to the good schools should get into better secondary schools.’

I don’t disagree that it will never be meritocratic for primary school admissions. Those who have the background, will indeed be advantaged. For example, my son got a place in ACJS simply because I am an old boy.

But my daughter will have to go to a non-elite primary school because we think it’s a waste of time and emotional distress doing all that volunteer work without any guarantee of entry.

What I don’t agree with MM Lee, is the assertion that it is performance that levels the playing field, when PSLE comes around to shunt students to different secondary schools.

Performance at the PSLE is also determined by family background and one’s social circles.

If a brilliant student comes from a disadvantaged background and goes to a school where most of the kids have no access to expensive tuition or sometimes even have to help out at their parent’s hawker stalls, what are his chances of reaching his real potential?

I go to United Square every week for music lessons, which in itself is an activity for the privileged (I remember back in my journalism job, I nearly had to cut my lessons because I couldn’t really afford the lessons when I went solo income).

I see parents spend thousands of dollars sending their kids to swanky tuition centres (which themselves show off their wealthy clientele by displaying iPads and cute pets at the window dressing area). Yet I am fully aware that these are the top 10-20% of society.

Of course, these kids would have a far better chance of doing well at PSLE compared to equally bright kids who have never stepped into these tuition centres. To make things worse, the primary school exams and assessments of today are ridiculously hard even by adult standards. Without the aid of tutors or full-time mothers, most kids would be quickly “filtered” out by these trick questions.

Logically speaking, standards have increased across the board, and the PSLE has had to evolve over time to ensure that there is proper bell-curve distribution of the exam results.

But I grieve for those students who by nature are in the top “brilliant” end of the bell curve, but are pushed to the middle or even lower because they simply don’t come from the right background that allows them to overcome the steep demands of the system.

And me and my friends can tell you this – the PSLE is a poor determinant of success in adulthood. Many of the brilliant and successful people that I know were poor performers in primary and secondary school, and really bloomed when they finally left the restrictive Singapore education system (ie. went into the real world).

Our education system is filled by many teachers who have never worked in the private sector, and I often question how much are they actually teaching the kids what they really need to know to succeed in a life that is not determined by a syllabus.

If all the Govt is concerned with, is developing scholars to hire into the civil service, the current education system is probably the right model. So many SG kids get seduced into taking a scholarship (private or government) without knowing why they’re doing it, except that their track record of examination records (and their hopeful parents) seem to tell them it’s the right thing to do. In a system where rich people ask their children to take up scholarships when they don’t need the financial help, there is little hope or space for poorer people.

The burden now is on parents to ensure, that no matter our social background, our children need to understand early on that the SG education system is inherently un-meritocratic – not just at primary school admission, but all the way – and they need the right attitude to deal with it.

And we should also instill in them the idea that not being able to excel in the SG school system is not the end of the world – it’s simply not the right fit for many kids. 

I never thought I’d write this, but I’m really tired of Singaporeans and their complaints about how Singapore is run.

Ironic, coming from me who used to be known in my army platoon as Complain King. So maybe I’m tired of my own complaints too.

Perhaps it’s the Internet – it amplifies every whine that used to be only heard in a taxi, bus or coffee shop. On Facebook and Twitter, everyone’s complaining complaining complaining.

I’m not saying that people’s complaints aren’t valid – the Gahmen needs feedback before they realize anything is wrong, and nothing can ever be perfect. And my philosophy is that if I don’t speak up, things won’t begin to change for the better.

But what is really starting to grate me is how we complain about so many things, yet we often do not lift a finger to resolve the situation or make an effort to work around the situation.

We did not receive a good education so that we can be armchair critics. Instead, I believe the experiences and skills we pick up, should be put to use by changing the world in our little ways.

I was once taught by a wise woman – we can’t change many things at one time, but we can change people one at a time. And in time, our effort will be multiplied by other people who learn to see the way.

For example – not happy about boorish and rude MRT customers? Take action – wake a sleepyhead up so they can give a seat to pregnant ladies. Speak up loudly, but politely, when others don’t give way, instead of just barging your way past shoulders. Show others that corrective action can be taken without starting a fight.

Not happy about Gahmen policies?

Now this is a tough one, and you need to measure what you can change and what you can’t. Singapore is not a cheap place to live in, and is not designed to be. So what do I tell my kids – work hard, study hard, and make sure you don’t end up in some lousy job where you can’t pay the bills.

I don’t complain that the Gahmen is making it so hard for me to do this and do that – I simply make sure that I work on my career hard enough so my family need not worry about a roof over their heads. It’s my own responsibility to make my family happy, not the Gahmen’s.

Sure, I don’t like the ERP system either, so I don’t drive to work (parking rates are nuts in Raffles Place anyway). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It’s actually faster to take MRT to work sometimes, versus driving on our congested roads. Shall I complain about there being too many cars? I have done so before, but then again, I want a car just like everyone else!

If I’m not happy with the way the country is being run, I should just move out and start elsewhere.

So you might say that it’s not easy nor cheap to emigrate. So how did our forefathers come here when they faced a tough situation back in China? They left everything behind, they got used to discomfort, and they eked out a future for us. Today I look around me, and I wonder how much of the “frontier spirit” we retain today.

And then we complain about how hardworking foreigners are taking away our jobs. What the heck.

Have we forgotten how contentment feels like? Are we always looking for somebody to make our lives better when we have not worked for it? Don’t complain about taxes either, because people in other countries get taxed far worse than we do.

Am I happy if my tax money gets blown on big spectacles like the National Day Parade? Of course not, but does it make my life unpleasant? Only if I get asked to stand in the parade square. Otherwise, I can live with it.

What’s my point here? I’m not becoming more inert and accepting of the way things are being run in this country. It’s just that after working for a decade, I can see a bigger picture and that there are less and less things worth complaining about.

The one thing that I really want to complain about is the pressurizing education system here. But then I think to myself – what can I change about it? It’s not just the system, it’s the parents who are perpetuating it with their kiasu methods. I can’t possibly complain about all other parents can I? I’m fortunate we made the decision for Goy to stay at home to look after the kids and guide them accordingly, and it really does help. 

Then you’ll say, along with my late mother, that double income is absolutely necessary in Singapore.

That’s nonsense – do you know how many of my friends are solo income and not all of them earn big bucks? It’s what kind of sacrifices you are willing to make, and what keeps you happy. A balanced family is what keeps me happy, and fortunately, I’m not crazy about property or cars.

I’ve not turned into a Gahmen apologist, mind you. I’m just so tired of reading and hearing all these complaints, yet so few want to make any effort in changing things for the better for themselves. So many just want to keep to their fixed view of the world, and blame someone else for their unhappiness.

Having been spoon-fed and enjoying a stable society in a region of unpredictability, we are drowning in our own apathy and many don’t even know what apathy means.

Ok, my complaint is over. Back to work.