of National Service and Organizational Communication

‘Defending what’s ours’. That is the new tagline from the recent advertising campaign for National Service. In an article on The Online Citizen (TOC), an article was written on the above topic and local blogger Sam Ho was cited. In his blog, Sam Ho voiced his unhappiness with the National Service. He quoted the oath all enlistees undertake:

“We, Members of the Singapore Armed Forces, do solemnly and sincerely pledge that: We will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore. We will always support and defend the constitution. We will preserve and protect the honor and independence of our country with our lives.”

Sam Ho then stated his thoughts on the oath and National Service.

“I think the oath has to be revised. We need to protect our economy, our foreign talents and do the jobs foreigners cannot and do not want to do, i.e. National Service. Mind you, time and again, the government has force fed us with the rhetoric and reason that foreign talents in Singapore are recruited to do the jobs Singaporeans cannot and do not want to do. Well, that is true to a large extent. If we saw beyond the xenophobia, we will come to realize, is it worth it defending what’s ‘ours’?”

“I do not share the same definition of ‘ours’ as the government and its self-professed state-independent military organization do.”

Inevitably, many would have their doubts and dislikes regarding National Service. The occasional tale of the death of a soldier never fails to generate a negative public response. Furthermore, most men in Singapore that have been through the SAF as part of their National Service obligations tend to dislike their time spent there. This general unhappiness with the SAF organization could be derived from negative personal experiences. I had to admit that my time in the SAF was not always a pleasant one. I personally do not believe in National Service. It tore me away from my family, my work and the things I love to do. I do not want to be part of any organization that promotes and reinforces dominant gender norms and norms. It is possible the SAF are failing in the aspect of organizational communication.

So let us take a closer look at organizational communication.

An organization is a system consisting of a large number of people working together in a structured way to accomplish multiple goals.

-Trenholm (2005)

An organization is interdependent and contains a hierarchical structure. Other typical characteristics of an organization include orders and ranks, specialization and bureaucracy. The SAF is such an organization.

In a successful system of organizational communication, members of the organization are subjected to organizational structure (hierarchy) and positions. Members should be driven not by personal goals, but by common or collective goals. Members should likewise be formal and deferential with a degree of relational distance and detachment.

Organizational communication employs formal channels of communication. Information flows through a structured chain of command made explicit in an organizational chart. In order to be successful, information should have downward flow, upward flow and horizontal flow. In National Service, there is usually a lack of upward communication. Perhaps it is because the management generally neglects upward messages. It is probable that subordinates who are ambitious, insecure or distrustful might distort or withhold upward information. Upward communication such as through progress reports, feedback and suggestions schemes could help to improve the organizational communication in the SAF.

Moreover, an informal organizational structure could improve organizational communication in the SAF. An informal structure is effective as it satisfies the individual’s personal interest and needs unlike the formal channels. An informal organizational structure would generate mainly useful information with minimum rumors. Although information may be incomplete, accuracy levels can be comparatively high (75% – 95%). Information can likewise be more reliable than formal channels.

of New Media and Govt policies

Singapore is the most wired city in the world. And according to a media survey, young Singaporeans aged 15 to 24 spend an average of eight-and-a-half hours a day being connected.The Singapore government has been embracing and even adopting new media for its work. While it is still some way from fully tapping the potential, the government said it will gradually evolve its policies with a light touch, as the Web2.0 revolution constantly throws up new challenges. And the government has been using new media outlets such as Facebook, YouTube and forums to hook up with citizens.

On 21 February 2009 Channelnewsasia.com reported an article on the government’s new media policy. It was entitled ‘Govt says policies on new media will evolve as new challenges crop up’. ‘Light touch… tough talk’. That was the name of the article The Online Citizen ran on the government and its new media policies.

Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan launched the online resource on racial harmony on Saturday. While the government is gradually liberalizing its approach towards online engagement with its citizens, the minister added that one has to be responsible and careful when posting their thoughts online.”

Dr Balakrishnan said at the event:

“Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore.

“The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you.”

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is defined as any form of communication using computers and computer networks, including email, electronic conferences, newsgroups and web chats. CMC allows access and interaction between people and databases all over the world. The ideal example for CMC is the Internet.

CMC has changed our understanding and perception of effective human communication, especially in our perception and understanding of personal identity, the community, knowledge and information. CMC has caused a shift in the basic definition of the individual. It provides anonymity but information is ‘traceable’ through our digital footprints. As we can noticed from Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks, we know that the anonymity is not possible online. The government is able to track and monitor our activities online and even hunt down individuals.

CMC has greatly positively impacted our lives CMC has infiltrated many aspects of the community life, including, family, social life, education, governmental, medical and legal areas.

I believe that the government should not over regulate CMC such as the Internet. CMC such as the Internet has contributed to societal progress. It can be used as a form of receiving unbiased feedback as netizens tend to speak their minds freely on the Internet. I believe that the government should focus their attention on ideas, suggestions and thoughts expressed on the Internet. Although I agree some restraint is needed as a netizen, clamping down on free speech on the new media would have adverse effects. And making what could be deemed as a threatening remark at netizens is inappropriate.

Do you have any views on this topic?

of Mass Communication and Mass Media

When one thinks of mass communication or the mass media, the big boys such as Time Warner or CBS or even News Corporation comes to mind. Nevertheless, in Singapore, the only local mass media companies are Singapore Press Holdings and Channel Newsasia. These corporations are much smaller in size and often focus their coverage on a regional scale, unlike the other global giants.

Mass Communication is a form of communication through which institutional sources address relatively large, heterogeneous and anonymous audiences physically separated from one another.

Here are some characteristics of mass communication.

Institutional sources are the media sources such as newspapers, magazines, radio, TVs, etc. We are familiar with these, we see and consume them everyday. Receivers of these institutional messages are ‘invisible’ and have little or no direct experience with the media sources. Media messages are heterogeneous, anonymous and are not individualized. Receivers’ relationship with sources is voluntary and communication can be terminated at will. Media channels are interposed, employing different technology to transmit or receive messages. Technological access is usually required to encode and decode the message.

Lets look at some of the media theories:

The first one is Magic Bullet Theory (Powerful Effects Theory), this was used in the 20s/30s era. It was popular after the second world war. In this theory, the media is powerful while the audiences are powerless. Audiences are passive and will do or act out desired behaviors expected by the media.  It predicts strong and relatively universal effects of mass communication on all audiences. We’re controlled by the media.

The second theory is Uses and Gratification Theory (Limited Effects Theory). It was introduced in 1950s/60s. This theory is the opposite of the first one. The media is  thought to be powerless while the audiences are powerful. The audiences are active and discerning enough to resist the media messages. They use media for some reasons, to gain more information, to improve personal identity, build stronger relationship, to escape from something,etc. They use media according to their needs practicing self-censorship, and sought out competing media messages.

The third category is Moderate Effects Theory models. The strength of the media and the audiences are almost the same. The media has the power to influence the audiences and the audiences have the power to select or resist the media.

There is a term called Agenda Setting Function, it is the ability of the media to raise the importance of an issue in public’s mind. Media tells us what to talk about in daily life. The power of the media to influence us depends on our experiences too. If they are talking about something that we do not related to, we tend to ignore that message. The media is extremely successful in controlling what we think about.

The Media Hegemony Theory, the media is seen to represent the views of the powerful elite; it is influence by those who hold economic and political power. The media strives to monopolise opinions and drive society in a way that benefits them. Powerless groups are silenced in media hegemony.

Media Determinism Theory states that the medium used is more important than the message in communication. Marshall McLuhan argues that ‘The Medium is the Message.’ The medium used in communication has the power to change the way we live and experience the world.

The Spiral of Silence Theory predicts that the public have the tendency to refrain from expressing unpopular views or ideas. The decision to speak up is influenced by public opinion. The media can be said to influence behaviour by supporting certain views.

Lastly, we have the Cultivation Theory. This school of thought says that messages in the media do not influence audiences attitudes directly but, cultivate an opinion indirectly. The media can have the mainstreaming effect, creating a way of looking at the world that eventually becomes the commonly held view. The media adopts the resonance effect as audiences’ everyday experiences match those they consume on the mass media, creating a ‘double dose’ effect.

I believe that the Magic Bullet Theory definately do not apply in modern day Singapore. The local mass media, although very successfuly influencial, does have it’s limitations. Local audiences are also well educated and more dicerning with the messages. Moreover, many other mass media channels are available to the locals through cable television and the Internet. The local audience are media savvy, they consume multiple channels of different mass media. They do not just take the messages for the truth and tend to be relatively well informed with a questioning spirit.

So which of these media theories do u think is representive of the mass media in Singapore?

of Pushers and Movers

Push is a science fiction thriller movie that is currently being shown in cinemas. I was fortunate enough to be able to catch it over the weekend.

A riveting action-thriller, Push burrows deep into the deadly world of psychic espionage where artificially enhanced paranormal operatives have the ability to move objects with their minds, see the future, creates new realities and kill without ever touching their victims.

Here is a synopsis:

The Division, a shadowy US government agency, is genetically transforming potential psychics into an army of psychic warriors and brutally disposing of those unwilling to participate. Nick Gant, a telekinetic or mover, has been in hiding since the Division murdered his father more than a decade earlier. He has found sanctuary in densely populated Hong Kong, a safe place on earth for fugitive psychics like him. Nick is forced out of hiding when Cassie Holmes, a 13-year-old clairvoyant or watcher who is able of seeing the future, seeks his help in finding Kira, an escaped pusher who may hold the key to ending the Division’s program. Pushers possess the most dangerous of all psychic powers – the ability to influence others’ actions by implanting thoughts in their minds.

However, Cassie’s presence soon attracts the attention of the Division’s agents, forcing Nick and Cassie to flee for their lives. With the help of a team of rogue psychics, the group of them traverses the underbelly of the city, trying to stay one step ahead of the authorities as they search for Kira. Nick, Cassie, Kira and the small group of psychics find themselves battling against Division Agents and the local Hong Kong psychics. These two groups of psychics will stop at nothing to achieve their goal.

The movie displays many aspects of Groupthink.

Groupthink is defined as:

“a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”

-Irving Jarvis

Symptoms of Groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability

• Belief in group’s own morality

• Shared stereotypes

• Collective rationalization

• Self-censorship

• Illusion of unanimity

• Pressure on dissenters

• Mind-guards

In the movie Push, the shady US government agency known as the Division showcases many aspects of Groupthink. First and foremost, yhe Division is portrayed to have a strong sense of belief in its own morality. Two of the leading Division’s agents, Agent Henry Carver and Agent Victor Budarin have a similar warped sense of morality. The Division’s agents would stop at nothing to achieve their goals; even though, it means committing felonies or murdering innocent bystanders. Furthermore, they appear to believe that their actions are justified. They would utilize any means possible to secure Division’s objective. They seem to have a collective rationalization, placing Division’s agenda above anything else. The Division’s agents likewise seem to adopt shared stereotypes. The agents dress alike in the typical black suits and sunglasses. They also seem to have same personalities – cool headed, confident and cunning.

In addition, the group of rogue psychics comprising of Nick, Cassie, Kira and the others could be analyzed by Poole’s Multiple Sequence Model.

Poole’s Multiple Sequence Model suggests that groups develop three different but parallel tracks.

1. Task track

2. Topic track

3. Relationship track

In the movie, the group of psychics led by Nick, develop the different tracks at different rates. Initially, the group is banded to together for various reasons. Some came to fight the common enemy, others wanted to help out of friendship and some were only there because they were hired to. Therefore, the task and topic track progressed faster than the relationship track at the beginning.

However, through all extended periods of time spend together, the group begun to bond with Nick and Kira even entering into a personal relationship. Nevertheless, they did not manage to make much progress with their task track as they were constant pursued by Division’s agents. Thus, the group’s relationship track begun to flourish while their task track was halted.

Although it has not received much media attention, I personally feel that the movie amazing. It was criticized as being “visually flashy but hyperkinetic and convoluted”. Nevertheless, the movie intrigued me as I am a science fiction fan. The movie had stunning special effects coupled with a interesting plot. The directing was not a let down either. I liked how the movie was set in Hong Kong, an Asian setting unlike the typical western setting. I would definitely recommend Push to anyone seeking a thrill at the movies.

of Celebrities and Break ups

Celebrity couple Radio DJ Glenn Ong and television presenter wife Jamie Yeo have officially filed for separation. Glenn Ong broke the news on his ‘Morning Express’ show. There had been rumors and speculation for the past few weeks of their relational problems. Their decision was said to be a mutual one and thus, the parting was amicable. When interview by the New Paper ironically at a Valentine’s Day roadshow, Glenn Ong seem glad to answer questions.

“We’ve drifted apart and we have different goals. The split was amicable and we still talk.”

“In fact, Jamie and I don’t quarrel. Thank goodness we didn’t have one of those bitter fights that some couples had,” he said.

“Jamie and I thought long and hard about it. If it didn’t happen now, it could’ve happened in 10 or 20 years,” the Class 95 radio DJ said yesterday.

The celebrity couple were thought to have a strong bond and were openly affectionate during their long relationship. Even close collegues appeared to be caught by surprise by Glenn Ong’s announcement on air. From the interview, it also became clear that the couple had been “living apart for a while”. This is Glenn Ong’s second divorce and Jamie Yeo’s first.

On the other hand, another celebrity couple Chris Brown and Rihanna was likewise in the media spotlight. Rihanna had canceled her performance at the Grammys, just hours before she was due to be on stage. Media sources say she sustained a bruised face while allegedly riding in the car with boyfriend Chris Brown. Receiving a call of a heated argument, police arrived to the scene and allegedly found Rihanna injured and Chris Brown missing. The LAPD is still investigating the incident. Following that, Rihanna has since cancelled her performance in Malaysia and Indonesia on her “Good Girl Gone Bad” tour.

Nevertheless, Rihanna announced after several days that she and Chris Brown are back together.

In Interpersonal Communication, conflict can occur during the Relationship Maintenance Process. Conflicts occur usually due to differences in perception. Conflict resolution can be functional (build a relationship) or dysfunctional (break a relationship). In the case of Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo, their conflict proved to be dysfunctional and resulted in their separation. However, it is possible that Rihanna and Chris Brown’s relational conflict was a functional one as they finally got back together.

In the Knapp Model of Relational Development, Mark Knapp describes the progression and development of relationships as a series of 10 stages in two phases.

Stages 1-5 (Coming together)

1. Initiating
2. Experimenting
3. Intensifying
4. Integrating
5. Bonding

Stages 6-10 (Coming apart)

6.  Differentiting
7. Circumscribing
8. Stagnating
9. Avoiding
10. Terminating

Stages 1-5 describe the phase of coming together, whereas stages 6-10 describe the relational development phase of coming apart. The stages may not be linear and relationships often may regress to a previous stage or even skip one. Moreover, it is possible to identify the stage a relationship is in by exploring the typical behavior amplified in the relationship.

Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo have their relationship is in the Terminating stage (10th stage). In this stage, the relationship has ceased to exist. Parties in the relationship move on from the relationship in the Terminating stage. For Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo, they filed for separation and have been living apart for some time.

In the situation of Rihanna and Chris Brown, they are probably in the intermediate process of Stages 4-7 also named the Relational Maintenance stage by some theorists as they are in the process of sorting out their conflicts.

In my opinion, I believe that both Glenn Ong and Jamie Yeo seem to take their break up very well. They claimed to have not quarreled but rather just drifted apart. Furthermore, both of them did not seem to endure any bitter feelings for each other. In fact Glenn Ong still appear to hold Jamie in high regard saying “I still think Jamie is a great girl. I hope she still thinks I’m a great guy.”

However, I too believe that the media should not give these celebrity couples so much coverage, as sometimes this is abused by them to attract attention. After all, there should be a degree of sanctity involved in marriage, and blabbering about the latest break up or separation in a national newspaper is unnecessary.

Do you have any comments on this issue?

of Hospitalized MPs and Downright Outrageous Netizens

Yio Chu Kang Member of Parliament Mr Seng Han Thong was allegedly set ablaze by a fellow resident last month. After the incident he drew many online attacks.Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew spoke in Parliament on Wednesday February 4 2009. In the Strait Times article published on February 5 2009 entitled ‘Online attacks: Minister rues lack of self-policing’, he expressed disappointment towards the apathetic response of netizens and the unpleasant comments made.

“The vast majority were unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous. It was disappointing.”

RADM Lui cited examples of online statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should ‘be thankful for’ in spite of being attacked. A poll posted on wayangparty.com that was referred to be unjust had asked who deserved more sympathy: MP Mr Seng or his alleged attacker Mr Ong. Mr Ong had received 200 votes while Mr Seng 56. RADM Lui likewise noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng.

When asked by Ms Penny Lui (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), RADM Lui went on to voice his views on netizen’s response to the physical attack on Mr Seng.

“It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.”

“But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.”

“I do not think that the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.”

RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct and enforce such norms. He also commented that website proprietors must be more responsible and prompt in moderating the sites to ensure credibility, objectivity and balance in the content posted.

I do not condone any acts of violence nor appreciate the nasty postings that were targeted at Mr Seng. I am inclined to feel much sympathy towards Mr Seng for the grievous hurt he sustained. I feel that no matter how strong a case Mr Ong had, he should not have communicated his distress through violence.

However I do feel that the manner our entire blogosphere and netizens that were tainted by RADM Lui’s comments were rather unjustified. Firstly, one would be hard-pressed to deny that it is evident that there are online posts which have criticized both the attack and netizens who endorsed such brutality. It was probable that the general public and many of those sympathetic towards Mr Seng neither felt a need nor wanted to voice out their opinions online, resulting in a comparatively smaller number of sympathetic posts. Secondly, I believe that by not replying or rebutting the nasty comments does not equate to a lack in compassion among netizens. It is likewise unjust to create such a negative prototype of netizens. Furthermore, the quick claim of judgement that the internet is thus incapable of self-regulatory due to a particular incident is bewildering.

In Foundations of Communication (Unit 2), it is stated that we manage our perception through communication.

“Perception is the process of selecting, organising and interpreting information in order to give personal meaning to the communication we receive.”

-Seller & Beall

One’s perception is influence by our individual characteristics, the mass media, social networks and the environment. With regards to RADM Lui’s comments, I foremost believe that individual characteristics such as RADM Lui’s role as a Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and previous appointment to a Rear-Admiral of the Navy influenced him significantly with the selection of information. This current and prior appointment possibly made him more critical and reactive than most of us when he came across the comments made by netizens. Moreover, there is a danger of omission and oversimplification in the selection process in such a delicate case like this as it is difficult to ascertain the collective views of netizens as a whole.

Likewise the organising of information can be influenced by structural elements. The roles we play, relationship between the people involved, and situational or social rules governing the situation are all part of structural elements that influence our organisation. In this case, RADM Lui’s evident role as a Senior Minister of State of (Information, Communications and the Arts) and his relationship to the victim as his fellow MP could have afforded such influences.

Subjectivity of interpretation is inescapable despite the commonalities. RADM Lui likened the online attacks to be a “squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation“, this possibly illustrates his interpretation of the situation. His interpretation of the issue was possibly not only influenced by his individual characteristics mentioned above but also by his perceptual set of the blogosphere and its netizens.

In our tendencies in perception, we have a tendency to favor dispositional attributes over situational ones, assuming that the cause for behavior is the person and not the situation. Attribution refers to the process of assigning cause to human behavior. I believe that, in this case, there was insufficient attribution placed on the situation and one could gain much insight if he examines the situation closely.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Your views are much appreciated.

of Permanent Secretaries and French Holidays

On the 6th of January, a high ranking civil servant wrote an article in The Straits Times Life section entitled ‘ Cooking up the holiday spirit’. Mr Tan Yong Soon, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, recounted a five week holiday he and his family spent in Paris, learning how to cook at the exclusive Le Cordon Bleu cookery school in Paris. Perhaps a little too self absorbed he wrote:

‘Taking five weeks’ leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.’

The cooking course cost alone was approximated to be S$42,000.

This particular article caused an overnight upheaval of emotions as it struck a dissonant chord amongst readers. This is even more eminent with the current global economic downturn as some Singaporeans are challenged with uncertainties and hardships. On the 19th of January this month Mr Teo Chee Hean, the minister in charge of the civil service, tackled the issue in parliament on the above article likening it to be ‘ill-judged and showing a lack of sensitivity’.

While many Singaporeans would not be able to afford such a extravagant escape from Singapore, one would likewise not ordinarily rebuke someone for indulging in such luxuries. To be fair, it is a reality that top civil servants are highly paid in order to attract the appropriate talent. The cooking course at such a renown institution, though pricey, was within his means. Moreover, what one decides to do with his paycheck is indeed one’s private business. After all, Mr Tan’s intention at heart for a family holiday could be considered noble.

Nonetheless, I feel that his article has been miscommunicated on the whole.

In the Psychological Perspective of communication, miscommunication occurs when mental sets of the source and receiver are so far apart that there is no common experience. This issue of Mr Tan’s article would be a favorable example. It is highly possible that Mr Tan had no ill intention when writing the article for The Straits Times Life section. He was perhaps trying to just describe his ideal getaway from his responsibilities or maybe trying to highlight to the public the importance of spending time together as a family. Nevertheless, many of us would be unable to share such a similar experience, leading to a breakdown in communication on the matter. This miscommunication could possibly improved through considering other points of view .

On the other hand, the Social Contructionist Perspective suggests that we construct our world through processing it in culturally recognizable ways, connect them to other facts we know and respond to them in ways our culture considers significant. This was a probable cause for the breakdown in communication. To Mr Tan, spending S$42,000 for a memorable family holiday could be a prudent way to spend his money. To the man in the street, it is a year’s salary. Unable to reconcile with such a luxury, especially so in today’s difficult economic situation, the common man would inevitably feel emotionally wrenched. As such, communication could be improved by taking responsibility for the things we talk about and the way we talk about them. Furthermore, developing the ability to interpret cultural constructs could be vital to solving the issue.

All in all, I am incline to agree that Mr Tan’s revelation, in a national newspaper, at a time of uneasiness for most is insensitive to say the least. Sometimes a little sensitivity goes a long way.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Your views are much appreciated.