This will be the second time I am voting, and the use of digital media has really changed the husting climate this time. Many articles, photos and videos started circulating in my Facebook and email accounts. Friends I knew for years actually became outspoken, fervent campaigners who want to make Singapore a better place to live and work in. I guess those who've always thought youths are generally apathetic towards politics should reconsider their judgement.
Digital media has certainly made information more accessible, and palatable. I no longer have to plow through a thousand-word editorial on The Straits Times or The Economist to understand what is going on. Instead I visit Mr. Brown for his "Gee Gee Gee Gee Ahruh See" video to get a humorous summary of the issues that have been raised thus far. I applaud all parties for engaging us through these varied platforms, and I believe my decision come May 7 will be one that is better-informed, and more carefully considered.
Yet this very advantage of digital media (of being accessible, updated, and more engaging) have led to such an explosion of information, that I sometimes have difficulty keeping up. It also makes separating the wheat from the chaff an arduous task. Politics aside, we all know the perils of the cyber landscape. There is so much information, yet only some of it is true and reliable, some are half-truths, while the remainder is simply made up of blatant lies. The onus is on the reader to verify the information offered in the article.
The picture becomes more muddled when you add politics to the mix. In an attempt to sell different ideologies, an essay with a political agenda often drift away from being a neutral and objective piece, to one that is saturated with emotive words and rhetoric. Such is how the game called politics is played. It will take a mature electorate to read between the lines and censor all theatrics and word play before finally understanding what the article has to offer, if any.
I have to admit that I am concerned with how mature our first-time, Gen Y voters are. Let's be honest. More than 90% of links I see on Facebook for the past week have been unabashedly pro-opposition. The increased interest on the opposition has been phenomenal, and I have taken advantage of this to understand the opposition candidates better. However I am not certain if such a lopsided representation may inadvertently skew our perception of "ground sentiments". I am very curious to know what the Gen Y voters make out of this. In the same vein (and I agree somewhat) that our local papers have been guilty of pro-government propaganda, TOC and TR (the most quoted websites from which FB articles originate) haven't been exactly balanced either. So I urge all voters to study both sources carefully.
I will now attempt to dissect what a good balanced article should be; and since analogies seem to be the in-thing these days, I will give it a shot:
You want to get a phone, which will become an extremely important device in your daily living. You are given the choice of either an iPhone, or a Blackberry. I prefer the iPhone more, so I want to sell you the idea that the iPhone will be a better choice. A responsible, balanced way to do this, while respecting your right of independent decision, is to tell you what the pros and cons of the iPhone are. So I will probably talk to you about its sleek design, comprehensive apps market, iPod, and lament about lack of Java support etc, then tell you that I can still live with not having Java support and the pros outweigh the cons. I might bring up a thing or two about BB while I'm at it, that it has too many buttons, it looks bulky, and the apps don't look as nice. But I will remind you that some BB models are camera-free so you can bring them to army camps. The final decision is up to you, because you will choose what is best for you.
Unfortunately many popular articles that were shared on FB seem to talk more loudly than sensibly. If they were trying to get you to buy the BB, they will first go into a tirade of how lousy the iPhone is. Then they enter into rhetoric like, "do you want a phone that has a death grip problem?" Duh, who does? The article ends pretty much at that, maybe adding a line that the BB will be a good alternative to the iPhone.
I think I am rambling, but all I want to say is, read the online articles with a discerning eye. Listen out for what both the iPhone/BB can do, because ultimately you are going to use the phone for what it is capable of. Don't be taken in by the unscrupulous salesman with an axe to grind.
To make this possible, my suggestion is to attend the rallies. This is where information will be coming from the horses' mouths, and not from middlemen. Hear directly from Steve Jobs and Apple engineers (since you now have the privilege) on what's so good about the iPhone. Hear directly from Research in Motion on what's so good about the BB. Don't believe tech reviews, just as we know movie reviews are hardly reliable sometimes. Hear from the source. Then, do a test drive (ok enough of driving analogies), but you know what I mean. You can't quite "test-drive" candidates, but think about how their proposals will work out if implemented, then see if you like the outcome.
GE 2011 is turning out to be an exciting election, and I have my personal favourites in both the incumbent party, and the opposition. I have always been told to consider both sides of an argument before making a decision or passing judgement, and I will continue to exercise this diligently. And I believe the younger segment of the electorate will be able to do the same.
Your vote is your voice. So speak up and be heard.
