Tete-A-Tech

A walk down the Yellow Brick Road of Malaysia's Corridor of the future

by Bernice Low, Malaysia

We sell modems, too!

Dec 4, 2009 11:21

I just saw this article on the Edge Daily's Web site: Green Packet bags three Euro deals.

I love how the article has such a positive spin, like the "Euro deals", when after you actually read the fine print, you find that this is actually "Eastern European" or more precisely Caucasus states since the countries in question are Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine.
Read more »

Leave a comment | Share

Wavin... and crashin...

Dec 1, 2009 17:08

... So, I finally wrangled myself one of those coveted Google Wave invites from a friend today.

With great excitement, I clicked into my invitation.�

Then I arrive at the start page, and there's a YouTube video that explains how everything works. Okay...
Read more »

3 comments | Share

First Transformers, then 2012... Seriously, GSC, please fix your Web site

Nov 16, 2009 14:20

Seriously...

I've been trying to get into the GSC.com.my (Golden Screen Cinemas) Web site for the last 20 minutes. And the bar on my browser still reads "loading".

All I want to find out is the TIME of the show! The TIME!
Read more »

Leave a comment | Share

The Last Word on Malaysian broadband... uncut + final cut

Nov 4, 2009 13:10

My very first blog for CNET Asia was on February 5, 2007. And I wrote about broadband. I wrote about how lousy the broadband was. How expensive it was for the slow speeds. The only thing that it didn't have was expletives. Which circa 2009 nowadays is usually how I talk about the broadband in this country. Expletives, uttered in a resigned tone. For the last two years, I have written at least six or seven blogs about the hopeless state of broadband in this country. They're fabulous for my hits (which makes the CNET bosses happy), but I felt a constant sense of futility (and churning frustration) with each blog I wrote deriding the broadband quality in this country, deploring the monopolistic landscape of the industry, and railing against the incumbent provider, Streamyx.

The source of my frustration was simply the lack of effect it had. My PR friends talk about how they have to nowadays make an effort to court every bleeding blogger out there, no matter how insignificant they are. They talk about how the bloggers have this absurd potential power that cannot be ignored. Yeah, well try writing about broadband and Telekom Malaysia. Then no matter how big your soapbox is and how loud you shout in cyberspace, and no matter how many bloggers, influential and otherwise, heap steaming hot piles of poopy scorn and vituperative on Telekom Malaysia, it makes no difference. THEY DO NOT CARE.

2 comments | Share

Screaming in cyberspace...

Oct 20, 2009 11:27

...Seems to be a waste of time when it comes to the Government of Malaysia. Because it appears they're rather deaf when it is about what the citizenry has to say, when it's not being said in the mainstream publications.

Witness the Government's decision to engage in a joint venture with several well-known businessmen to form a Formula 1 racing outfit (with the inspired name of "One Malaysia Formula One"). I have a small Facebook circle (under 100 real friends--everyone else is there for me to play Mafia Wars!) and my little informal evaluation of this idea was that most people of my demographic group (urban, educated, taxpayers!) thought it was a terrible idea, and a huge waste of money.

How did I arrive at this conclusion?

In a very unscientific way.

I placed a status message in my Facebook profile stating that I thought a Malaysian Formula 1 racing outfit was a bad use of taxpayers' money. I then monitored the comments and number of thumbs up that I got for the comment. I then did a search on Twitter to see what the trend of Tweets was on the subject (mostly neutral and links to the news). Then I did a Google Blog search--which, again, was mostly negative in terms of the blog entries. I then checked the comment section in the op-ed pieces of online publications like MalaysianInsider on this subject.

Does that mean the Government should have just chucked the idea? Absolutely not. What my little digital poll suggested was that the Government had either not done a good job selling the idea, or it needed to show more benefits from implementing the idea beyond whatever it had already used as justification. So it needed to do some better selling and better PR. But no, the authorities steamrolled ahead with the idea, despite the very obvious lack of public support or positive sentiment among what could be argued as the audience demographic likely to benefit the most but also bear the most cost of such an endeavour: Malaysian Netizens.

Formula 1 is not exactly a low-tech business, but it is a high technology business, involving very specific technical skills. Ignoring the audience that is high-tech (as opposed to low-tech, such as people in the rural areas) doesn't seem smart. Furthermore, the high-tech audience (assuming they are mostly represented among the middle class and upper middle class) are going to be bearing most of the cost of this project via their taxpayer ringgits. So the Internet audience represents the proportion of the public that is going to pay for the project, and arguably be the first to get any benefits (i.e. jobs).

Why ignore their concerns and reservations, and take heed of their opinions? Why does the Government not see the need to address this slice of the population's concerns, AND do so through the medium in which this audience regards as more acceptable and, more importantly, credible, i.e. online publications like MalaysianInsider and Malaysia-Today?

Recently, The Nut Graph ran an article about how a government minister wrote an email response to an article it wrote. In the story, the writers expressed surprise at getting a response, because the norm is for government ministers not to respond to anything written on the Internet (or questionably, to even respond, period). This is, in my view, a rather damning testament of the Government's inability to listen to the digital populace and to respond to criticisms that appear in media that they do not control absoutely.

A lot of this seems to stem from the viewpoint of the Government that the Internet is not credible and everything on the Internet cannot be trusted and believed. The concept seems to be that by paying attention to what is on the Internet, or responding to what is on the World Wide Web, the Government thinks it is legitimizing and lending credibility to the Internet (and by implication, indicating that the evil critics throwing digital brickbats are somehow right or somehow have a valid opinion).

Indeed, the Home Minister recently declared in a press interview that he would not give an interview to the editor of Malaysia-Today on the basis that he regarded the alternative media as
lacking credibility, compared with The Star newspaper. "The alternative
media have been doing a lot of spinning. Some are truths, while others are half-truths and outright lies."

Hmm, pot calling the kettle black, I say.And why then does the Home Minister have a Facebook page? Or is social media not the same as alternative media? (Read: It's okay to adore me online, but anything else is not acceptable?)

In that interview, the Home Minister was discussing, among other things, a very important issue of crime in Malaysia. Now, given that urban populations (and by extension, the more digitally inclined, more Internet-savvy, and more likely to supplement their traditional media reading with online media/alternative media) are the ones most affected by crime, the Home Minister's blatant disregard for alternative media seems a bit strange.

If the Home Minister wishes to make sure that Malaysians (especially urban ones) understand what he is doing to reduce crime and, more importantly, appreciate his commitment to the issue of lowering crime rates, surely he would chose to engage the public via as wide-ranging and as broad a channel of communication as possible?

Further, media credibility is not something that is defined by the speaker; it is defined by the reader/listener/viewer. If the public regards the medium as lacking credibility (which appears to be the general view of Malaysian newspapers among urban Malaysians), the Minister cannot give it credibility just by declaring that he thinks it is more credible.

You go to the source that people trust, not dictate the source as credible and so expect people to trust it. Surely, if the Home Minister would gain more credibility and respect for his policies by
speaking to Malaysia-Today, he should do just that?

Indeed, I think the Home Minister would receive quite an education if he were to browse Facebook pages (as opposed to just putting up his press releases on his profile) and look at a certain video of a police officer intimidating a member of the public and read the comments of average Malaysians in response to the incident (Search "rude police stopped a harmless lady" on Facebook). It is telling of the state of mind of most Malaysians when it comes to what they think about the police and crime.

Is it smart, indeed, wise for the Government to ignore digital conversations just because it happens to take place in a medium that the authorities regard as hostile toward them? Is it
smart for Government to decide it has completely no interest in what the online audience says because it's all spin or because it doesn't sound nice to their sensitive ears? Can the Government afford to exhibit such disinterest in its own brand (in this case, the 1 Malaysia brand) when international brands are now including monitoring of online and social media as part of their standard daily brand monitoring and engagement? Has the Government forgotten its own admission that it has lost the battle when it comes to cyberspace? Shouldn't a closer monitoring and responsiveness toward what is being said and talked about on the Internet be part of the Government's approach toward gaining the trust and support of the public for its policies and decisions?

In between Google Blogs and Twitter, Governments of today have an incredibly powerful tool to tap into the political consciousness and sentiment of a variety of sections of the public. Again, not so much to make decisions or determine what action, but to sample the public's opinion about its ideas or viewpoints, and then adjust or modify its stance (or simply provide more information or education) on the particular action or decision.

In the US, polling is often something that the US President takes into account when it comes to making decisions about important legislation or governmental development. (At least, that's what they tell those of us who watch The West Wing.) Indeed, Prez 2.0 Obama himself seems to make it a point to show that he's listening not just to what the public is saying, but what they are blogging, tweeting and Facebooking about his policies. In the UK, polls are also given due regard by the Government. For example, the YouGov poll is often cited in many political analysis pieces and seems to be a poll of some influence. In Malaysia, we have the Merdeka Polling Centre, although I personally regard the results as somewhat suspicious because the sample size usually tends to be rather small and polls published in the local media must be discounted on the basis of who owns the newspapers.

I'm not saying that polls, tweets, blogs and Facebook conversations should entirely influence the Government's actions, legislative or otherwise. These, like the infamous coffeeshop talk, hawker
center chatter and taxi driver opinions, represent at best an informal, inexact snapshot of that nebulous creature called public sentiment. But they are an invaluable opportunity and means by which to get a grasp of the "voter's pulse" as it were, alongside other mediums like the newspapers, and talking to constituents.

It's somewhat mindboggling that the Malaysian Government doesn't seem to see the power of these tools to help it in its cause of winning back the public, or at least keeping itself in
touch with the ground as it were.

After all, YB, why turun padang (go down to the field) when you can achieve the same goal by naik Internet?

Leave a comment | Share

About Bernice Low

Bernice Low is a screenwriter and pen-for-hire. At age 11 (in the era of BB--Before Blog) Bernice started her own newspaper, the Daily Jelly. It lasted two days before she was stopped from using school newsprint supplies for frivolous activities. She loves Cartoon Network's Bill and Mandy, has a thing for TV doctors House and MacDreamy, and is the proud owner of a 32-inch flat-screen TV. She believes diamonds and iPods are a girl's best friend. Her blog is her latest guilty pleasure.