Net Gen values across our social spectrum

Today ran a commentary on 6 September, written by Don Tapscott, titled "Needed: A new university for the Net Gen".

If you are not familiar with the name, Don Tapscott is often considered a leading researcher about how technology and the Internet has impacted society and our lives in general, and in particular how the people who are at the leading edge of this technological tsunami, which he dubbed the Internet Generation, plays a role in this transformation.

Two things struck me as interesting. For one, the article is in stark contrast to a much earlier commentary by David Brooks on 12 July, "Do you want to be hip or cultivated?" If Today purposes to be fair and objective by being non-prescriptive in their news presentation, then it has successfully done so with these two articles at rather extreme ends of the spectrum, which unfortunately did not shed much light for the way forward.

The other interesting point, which I wish to elaborate on, is Tapscott's preposition for a radical change in the way universities conduct lessons for Net Gen. For a leading expert who pays much attention to the essence of interactivity and value of free expression, Tapscott is bewildering simplistic in thinking it necessary for education, one of the traditional structures of discipline, to be tailored to accommodate a bit of deviance. Evidently, Tapscott is not versed with the musings of the late Michel Foucault (and please do pardon my post-modern snide here).

Admittedly, Tapscott’s analysis of Net Gen is problematic on a few counts, the most glaring being his conflation of a certain age group with what should really be viewed as a cultural evolution (i.e. the advent of the Internet in knowledge societies), which defaults his analysis as a “youth issue” and hardly begins to address the diversity of Net Gen, much less all Internet users. What is useful in his analysis, however, is the identification of the eight core values of Net Gen, which I felt was mostly accurate. Technically, these values have always been a part of any society (some would say the more radical or anti-establishment part), but modern means of communication and a growing online population has meant that these values are moving slowly from the fringe to the mainstream of social discourse.

As such, rather than focus on how education should embrace the Net Gen, Tapscott’s commentary could have served readers better if it has instead examined the inevitable encroachment of these Net Gen values, discussed how these values are actually much undervalued by especially Singapore society, and where lines permit, explored ways to integrate these values into a wider spectrum of society.

My key gripe with Tapscott’s focus on just the educational aspect is that, even if we could successfully implement his Net Gen Campus, when these students get out of school, they will be hit with a heavy dose of reality, most significantly at the workplace, but also society at large. Even Tapscott did not fail to acknowledge this, albeit in a one-liner.

In fact, rather than Tapscott’s ideal, the opposite often happens: The values of society extend its influence into the education sphere that further suppresses Net Gen values. It is not even something we need to speculate on. On 9 September, local media reported on an advisory on new media usage issued by the Nanyang Technological University to their students, reminding them to register with the Media Development Authority any websites they have started that contains political and religious material. This is a serious stab to Net Gen, and we are not even talking about curriculum change here.

As such, I would go out on a limb, do the exact opposite of what Today has done so far and be a bit prescriptive, if only to inject some of my own opinionated "Net Genness". I will attempt to pitch the eight values against Singapore society, identify the points of conflict, and hopefully suggest something constructive to move forward the need for a better integration of values.

1) Prize freedom and freedom of choice – Ours is a society where even the liberal arts face resistance when pushing the boundaries of free space. A national psyche for consensus of the majority, ingrained over the years, has overtaken our good sense that even the majority deserves the right to decide on things for themselves. Politically, a small segment of the population clamours for an electoral equality. However, true freedom is not just about voting, but recognition of the value of each individual to have a choice. Opening up policies and political freedom will do much, but there is also a need to identify what matters to us and stop delegating responsibility to institutions to decide on our behalf. Particularly when it comes to matters of morality and culture, we would be wiser not to let the values of our children be guided by the broad guidelines set up to appease the majority.

2) Desire for customisation and ownership – If this refers purely to our technology usage, then there is no quibble. Our gadgets have given us full control of our own sphere of existence. But beyond that, there is also a need to view ownership as a desire to make a contribution in each our own way. Current definitions of social contribution have narrow grassroots inclinations. However, there are actually many people who are making a difference through their own communities and social interest groups. Indeed, such informal communities, often seen as the hallmarks of Net Gen, have actually been in existence for generations, and it is but technology that has encouraged their proliferated and prominence. Most of these communities desire little more than a simple understanding that they are not misfits, and fewer permits needed to carry out their activities. In other words, we need to enable ownership from both a regulatory and mindset perspective.

3) Collaboration and conversation – Beyond the online world, you will find little else that supports this value. Our traditional media is still performing its monologues, fueling a national psyche of perceived compliance with the status quo, hence adding to the dismay of value number 1. Our efficient society is largely structured towards completing top-down directives. Consultation is a public relations exercise, and there is no feel for where it made an impact, if any. However, the concept of open society is not new, and even has inklings back in the 60s. The question remains as to how we can effectively enable it. We have created physical spaces such as Speakers’ Corner, but we also need to enable other spaces. Reduce the policing and politicising of the online world. Relook traditional public forums to do away with their structured consensus-seeking formats and turn them into active spaces for the cross-fertilisation of ideas, already rampant online. And the media must rise to the occasion, providing opportunities, if not actively championing, expressive freedom and social causes, rather than staying objective and sterile.

4) Scrutiny of organisations – To even question the authorities is sacrosanct in Singapore, and the judiciary has been particularly sensitive in recent times. Some of our bigger corporations can almost get away with things akin to false selling (think mini-bonds saga). Not to mention that certain government linked companies can actually be publicly defended for making billion-dollar losses, and still keep most of their books under wraps. To me, there is only one possible solution: Social journalism, or the restoration of the Fourth Estate. It must not be just an online undertaking, but be (re)infused into the core of traditional media.

5) Value for integrity – We are often asked to unequivocally accept the integrity of those in power. Yes, we do value integrity, but it is aligned with position, not with deeds. It should be evident that position means little to Net Gen, accustomed to believing in the quality of ideas more than be bothered by the identity of the person who uttered it. But it also leads to the question of why position should matter to anyone else. Integrity implies consistency in values, sticking with your beliefs rather than adapt them as the situation changes. It is linked to actions in time. We need to reduce our association of integrity with “the givens” and ask more for “the proofs”.

6) Desire for fun, even at work – Need I paint the awful realities of this point? A different work culture must evolve, starting from the business community. But this would not be possible unless, as a nation, we decide to relax and stop gunning for growth at any cost, and focus instead on growing what matters to our well-being. In the long run, it benefits not just Net Gen, but all of us.

7) Speed is normal – Again, this value seems pertinent to our technology usage, and for peculiar reasons, also to recent national projects such as Formula One, the Integrated Resorts and the Youth Olympic Games. For these, decisions were made rapidly, usually with little consideration for value number 3, and the implementation even more rapid. But beyond these, committees ponder for years on issues like censorship and new media control, often with results that only take us an inch forward. We need to recognise that what needs speeding up is not just economics and infrastructure, but also the maturity of our public debates.

8) Innovation is part of life – Take a look at what has sprung up across the island, either as physical landmarks (think big ferris wheel) or policies (think repeated beeps when we drive under gargantuan metal structures) and you would begin to wonder what exactly makes us Uniquely Singapore. Our society does not favour innovation. It favours success, even if that means reverting to the tried and tested. We are fast running out of such tried and tested ideas. It is time to take a step back, to consider the impossible, kill a few sacred cows and see where that leads us. If we fail, we are simply wiser about what does not work, and try again. Keeping the pressure cooker on, insisting on success at the first pass, is stifling for the free-wheeling creativity of the young and young at heart.

At the end of the above ramblings, I began to realise the massive undertaking required, should we really wish to integrate these values into society. It will require effort from political/policy, social mindset and institutional standpoints.

At this point, you might call me idealistic, but we might not have much of a choice. Even if we do not accept the reality that Net Gen will eventually replace most modern populations, we need to take heed that paying more attention to nurture some, if not all, of their values within us can have a positive impact on society at large.

It is not because Net Gen will take over the world and their values will be the same (quite likely, they won’t, surely as our children will grow differently). Rather, these values have actually been with us before the Internet. These values will move from the fringe to the mainstream, and will continue to evolve. If we are not prepared to first catch up and then evolve with them, we will be left behind, clinging on to age-old concepts. What widens is not a digital divide, but a social one. N

The following was submitted to Today Voices on one of their "foreign export" commentaries. I don't think it ever went to print, and really, I hardly bother to check nowadays.

Here it is for the records. My key gripe is about the writer's rather narrow definition of learning, especially with regards to how the web serves as a learning tool.

* * * * *

I refer to the commentary by David Brooks, 13 July, “Would you rather be hip or cultivated?”

Given the data that the writer has used to substantiate his piece, we would be inclined to believe his key idea - that there is a distinction between learning from books and learning from the Internet, and that we would be better off dedicating more effort to the first.

But the commentary is flawed in its main point of consideration. Brooks rightfully attempted to dispute the McLuhan theory that the media is the message, but falters again when deciding that the Internet, as it is today, needs to break out of its hip and conversational mode of imparting knowledge, and by implication, align more to books to attain better learning for its readers.

Regardless of the media, learning happens, and the mode it happens in is determined less by where you read, but how you read it.

Granted, internet users are more inclined to respond with their opinions than read out the full measure of the prose before their eyes. However, that should not be conflated with the notion that they do not, even once, process the text and internalise for their own knowledge.

To assume so, as Brooks has done, is to assume that we never, even once, pick up a book, read the prologue or even the first two paragraphs, and decide straight off that it is not worth more of our time.

Brooks might have shed more light on the situation if he has analysed the situation of online learning differently - that our current generation of education has propagated the speedy gathering of information, from books as much as from online sources, without teaching our students to critically analyse it and convert it to a knowledge that can only be uniquely their own.

The fault, then, is not the media, but the context of learning. And this should have been the direction of his investigation - what happens when students bring home books for the summer holidays? And while we congratulate the 800-odd who have done well in their studies because of the free books, have we taken another measure against those who spent their time learning online instead?

In reaching his conclusion without a proper analysis, is Brooks perhaps also guilty of the same hip and conversational culture that he claims plagues the Internet generation?

Conversely, as Brooks pointed out, because the online world defies traditional hierarchies of knowledge, online readers are more aware that their own knowledge, gleaned from all sources, be it in print or in bytes, is as valuable as any other expert's. It is at once a humbling and enlightening realisation, and challenges the mind to be even more open to new ideas and critical analysis.

As such, the Internet is about engendering a mindset change in learning, more so than any book - one way and authoritative - can hope offer. N

Cooling Off?

I normally avoid writing about party politics. It is often a face-value topic that does little for your soul, and I never have enough time as it is. My interest remains in the media and how the intricacies of public discourse shape and is shaped by society.

But there are some of these moments in the news that draw my attention. The articles eventually make their way to my "politics and media" folder, and at times compel me to stay the night, just so to pen a few lines.

Such was the case of PM Lee's declaration of a cooling-off period a day before election polling day. The mere concept is fraught with an intricate relationship with media, since modern politics has always leveraged for its purpose. But first, let's do the time-honoured tradition of first taking the argument apart...

Not holding its own weight?

The purported argument that supports this soon-to-be legislature (let us not kid ourselves) is the desire for citizens to be given time to think through their votes and not be swayed by the emotions of campaigning.

Numerous online comments have already ridiculed this, but what is more intriguing is that this is backdropped by constant affirmations from the ruling PAP, at every election won, no less, that the people have voted on the issues and the track-record of the PAP. That hardly constitutes a passionate vote, nor gives reason to believe that Singaporeans will be less level-headed now, so the about-face here is stark.

The other argument for the need to prevent social unrest is even more difficult to swallow. In a week of campaigning, with rallies going on every night, if riots have not broken out, it does not make sense to believe that it would happen on the last day. Fever-pitch day would simply be moved forward by a day. Worse indeed, for if a party does ever intends to work up the emotions of their voters, they will then have to pack greater intensity into fewer days.

Media in the balance

Perhaps it would make sense for us to compare these reasons with, say, Australia's in implementing their election cool-off. But assuming that these are valid concerns in our local context, for the moment, let's examine the role that the media plays when the time comes for this power relationship to be played out.

For a start, the use of broadcast media to continue carrying election news on the last day, as a means of keeping voters focused on the issues, holds little ground. It would be presumptuous to think that factual reporting on what has happened in the past week will not lead to an emotional response. Would not reminders of any kind on the last day be just as likely to bring up the same emotions the days before?

In this case, a complete media blackout would have been more meaningful, with the exception of radio stations playing easy music to enhance the cooling-off effect. Unfortunately, the PAP probably has simply reinforced public perception, intentionally or otherwise, of their intent to give "exclusive" coverage rights to traditional media. It is not a surprising move, as the traditional media has always been declared as the "preferred and trusted voice". But this is party politics, and such a move would only stir up more questions about the impartiality of traditional media, especially since this preferential rule is mooted by the ruling party and rejected by the WP. It will only serve to further corrode public confidence in the impartiality of traditional media.

Even more unfortunate is PM's "suggestion" for blogs with a name to them to toe the line. Panopticon threats aside, this statement is in line with the preferential treatment given to traditional media, but does little more than to contradict recently-touted practices of the PAP to be more open to online media as an election tool.

Furthermore, while the role of traditional media is clearly outlined, the same was not done so for online media. By nature, blogs have archives, so would the cooling-off period also require bloggers to remove all political posts for the past week, or just not make new posts on the last day? Does it apply to blogs and portals owned by the traditional media?

If anything, the simple sidelining of online media appears to have only one intent - to designate it as the curve ball that has the better chance of flouting the rule, and hence by extension the less reliable information source during election. Seriously, I do not believe much thought had been given to this particular PM remark to justify this speculation, but local blog comments already allude to PAP's fear of online media and hence the desire to limit its exposure come election time.

Mediating through a new minefield

Perhaps the bigger question on the minds of many bloggers who have dedicated themselves to covering political content is: How do I work around/with/through this new rule?

I hesitate to advise, as I believe, or at least hope, that the final legislature would provide more details and greater clarity on how this is supposed to pan out for all media, traditional or online come election time.

But I'd allow myself two suggestions...

Stay true to course – A blog that receives a following will have to value that as far as possible and do justice to their readership within the environment it operates in. You cannot hope to comment on Singapore politics but take cover in the vastness of cyberspace when the flak flies. Nevertheless, your readers will appreciate your legal constraints, and will accept that silence in a particular time does not compromise your editorial objectives. They will also judge you on the consistency of what you delivered previously and remember the points made. Respect their thoughts, so that with or without a cooling-off/blackout period, your readers know they still have all the information to make their decision freely.

Do it professionally – No matter what you read about in Malaysia or the USA, media does not determine politics. Media is the conduit of information. You honour your readership by staying away from party politics and sensationalism, and focusing on what matters to them. Because, honest to yourself, what makes you think you are the only source of information to them, much less a force capable of exerting an influence on their free will? N