|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Can You Hear Me Now?
Evaluating Online Consultation in Singapore
Kevin Y. Wang
University of Washington
3816 131st Lane SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Phone: 425-442-2592
Fax: 425-649-1973
Email: [log in to unmask]
Paper submitted for review of presentation at the Communication
Theory & Methodology Division of Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication annual conference, August 2005.
Kevin Wang is a graduate student in the Digital Media Master's
Program in the Department of Communications at the University of Washington.
Abstract
This paper evaluates the practice of online civic consultation in
Singapore with a conceptual framework drawn from liberal democratic
theories. The author surveys Singapore's online consultation portal
as well as the content of two selected discussion threads. The study
found that while the discourse demonstrates characteristics of strong
democratic deliberation, the quality of this communication is
hampered by the lack of administrative moderation and the failure to
adequately prepare participants before consultation process begins.
Can You Hear Me Now? Evaluating Online Consultation in Singapore
Communication Theory & Methodology Division
Abstract
This paper evaluates the practice of online civic consultation in
Singapore with a conceptual framework drawn from liberal democratic
theories. The author surveys Singapore's online consultation portal
as well as the content of two selected discussion threads. The study
found that while the discourse demonstrates characteristics of strong
democratic deliberation, the quality of this communication is
hampered by the lack of administrative moderation and the failure to
adequately prepare participants before consultation process begins.
Can You Hear Me Now? Evaluating Online Consultation in Singapore
4
Introduction
The rapid diffusion of information communication technologies (ICTs)
during the last decade brought significant changes to the public
sector. Increasingly, politicians as well as government agencies
around the world are utilizing the Internet to provide easier and
wider access to official information and to build an alternative
communications conduit between administrators and citizens. Online
consultation, a practice in which the government uses web-based
technologies to seek policy suggestions and comments from the public,
reflects this trend to deliver more transparency and openness through
digital interfaces. The successful implementation of online
consultation signifies a step toward broadening citizen participation
and inclusion in the decision making process a potential solution
to address the problems facing democratic governance today.
Problems with Modern Democracy
Democratic theories assume that public policy formation emerge from a
process of deliberation and dialogue involving citizens and their
elected representatives. Ideally, this model will produce a genuine
sense of self-governance, even under the apparatus of representative
democracy. However, many scholars have argued that this is not the
case for many western societies. Crozier et al (1975) suggest that
such pessimism about democracy primarily stems from three sources:
contextual threats, societal trends, and intrinsic challenges. While
contextual threats (e.g. regional security) and societal trends (e.g.
economic inequality) vary from country to country, intrinsic
challenges grow directly out of the functioning of democratic institutions.
One of these intrinsic challenges of democracy lies in the complexity
of the modern technological society. Consider some of the important
issues that we face today: stem cell research, human cloning, global
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, climate change, and
etcetera
"what problems like these have in common is that they have
enormously important consequence for a vast number of people, they
seem to require government decisions of some kind, and in order to
make wise decisions, decision-makers need specialized knowledge that
most citizens do not possess" (H.D. Forbes, in Day, 1988). As a
result, policy-making process today involves mostly a narrow circle
of experts, and ordinary citizens have little or no part in the
discussion. Even if public opinion is taken into account, the quality
of public opinion is raw and often unreliable (Yankelovich, 1991;
Fishkin, 2000). In other words, the institutions of liberal democracy
today seem incapable of achieving a true "democratic" control of
modern society.
To many scholars, the emergence of new media technologies in recent
years represents an opportunity to turn the tides. The emancipatory
power of the Internet to connect individuals on the Internet offers
the possibility of creating a direct two-way interaction between the
citizens and politicians, an important element to enhance democracy
or to foster democratic governance in developing countries (Sklair,
2002). Indeed, much research has been devoted to the potential of
"e-democracy" and its power to realign the citizen-government
relationship. From political mobilization (Foot & Schneider, 2002;
Ferdinand, 2000), grass-root movements (Wilhelm, 2000) to governance
and administrative reform (Hague & Loader, 1999; Gibson et al, 2004;
Fountain, 2002), it has been argued that the proper deployment of
Internet technologies can enhance the effectiveness of exiting public
services and foster higher degrees of democratic deliberation and
participation on issues of concern. Online consultation, as one of
the many e-democratic practices, is an attempt to achieve this end.
What is Online Consultation?
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
defines online consultation as "a two-way interactive relationship in
which citizens provide feedback to government. It is based on the
prior definition of information. Governments define the issues for
consultation, set the questions and manage the process, while
citizens are invited to contribute their views and opinions through
web-enabled applications" (OECD, 2001). In addition to Singapore, the
government of the United Kingdom, Canada, The Netherlands, Sweden,
and the United States[1] has also developed similar mechanisms in the
form of online public hearings/town hall meetings, online guest/panel
Q& A, live multimedia events (e.g. web-casting), comment forums, and
online focus groups (Clift, 2001).
Purpose of Study and Research Question
The aim of this paper is to propose a methodological approach that
can be used to evaluate the development of online consultation
practice. Drawing from theoretical assumptions of deliberative
democracy and public sphere, this conceptual framework is then
applied to collect empirical data, using Singapore as a subject for
case study. The author asks a simple research question: To what
extent does Singapore's online consultation practice reflect the
conditions for a strong democratic deliberation?
As an exploratory study, the author analyzed the content of two
discussion threads from the discussion forum of Singapore's online
consultation portal. By applying an evaluation framework on a real
life case, the author hopes to gather empirical data that will offer
a glimpse into the current development of online consultation in
Singapore, but also open the door for future studies.
Literature Review
Research on online consultation to date has primarily focused on the
procedural guidelines or policy for actual implementation (Macintosh
& Whyte, 2003). For example, a code of practice for online
consultation has been developed by the UK government (UK Cabinet
Office, 2000). A commission appointed by the Swedish government
(Rosen, 2001) has published a series of report that looks beyond
traditional consultation mechanisms and emphasizes the need to
increase citizens' participation, influence and development of
society in the 21st century. Despite these emerging efforts to
explore the potential of online consultation, systematic evaluations
of its quality and effectiveness are lagging behind the speed of
development and implementation. The significance of this study lies
in its attempt to fill the void in this area.
Theoretical Framework
This study follows the long tradition of democratic theorists who
favor a model of "strong democracy," as oppose to the conventional
form of Western liberal democracy. These scholars argue that the
theoretical foundation of liberalism assumes that "popular government
carries within itself a seed of totalitarian despotism that can be
prevented from germinating only by the judicious application of a
constitutional herbicide made up in equal doses of individual
liberty, natural rights, private property, and market capitalism"
(Barber, 1984). Government, in the liberal democratic sense, was not
founded on a strong commitment for public goods, but on a thin layer
of homogeneous individual interests (e.g. to protect/pursue personal
freedom, rights, and property). While this public consensus forms the
basis for political legitimacy and mandate, it can be easily
manipulated by the very own democratic procedure itself, as
manifested in the notion of the tyranny of the majority (de
Tocqueville) and manufacturing consent (Herman & Chomsky).
Strong democracy, on the other hand, is defined as "the participatory
mode of governance that resolves conflict in the absence of an
independent ground through a participatory process of ongoing,
proximate self-legislation and the creation of a political community
capable of transforming dependent private individuals into free
citizens and partial and private interests into public goods"
(Barber, 1984: 151). In other words, strong democracy does not rely
on elected representatives in the name of citizens. Instead, people
do not cease to be politically active or aware between political
elections. Active citizens govern themselves directly "not
necessarily at every level and in every instance, but frequently
enough and in particular when basic policies are being decided and
when significant power is being deployed" (Ibid). Characteristics of
this type of democracy are: frequent reporting back of delegates,
representations of popular opinion to policy makers, open government,
and referenda on important questions (Sklair, 2002: 323).
Democracy in this sense is therefore, a way of life, "an idea of
community life itself, and a life of free and enriching communion"
(Dewey, 1927) that stresses the importance of critical citizenship,
political deliberation, and participation. For strong democracy to
flourish, an environment that allows free, substantive political
discussion must be created. The condition for such deliberative
process in a strong democracy a strong democratic deliberation, has
been the subject of inquiry for many political theorists.
Conceptual Framework
Jurgen Habermas, the German philosopher who coined the concept of
"public sphere" as an avenue for strong democratic deliberation,
argues that such discourse must: 1) be autonomous from state,
economic, and political manipulation, political, or economic power;
2) demonstrate rational, criticizable reasoning, rather than dogmatic
assertions; 3) examine the issue in relation (or reflexivity) to the
larger social and cultural context; 4) demonstrate a commitment to an
ongoing dialogue with respect; 5) display sincerity, with each
participant making a sincere effort to understand all relevant
information; and 6) the discourse must show inclusion and equality
toward all participants to introduce questions and new discussions
(Dahlberg, 2001). Similarly, Robert Dahl (1989: 108-114) offers four
normative requirements for strong democracy. He argues that political
deliberation must include: an effective participation, with that
allows citizens to have opportunities to make known their preferences
regarding the final outcome; equality at the decisive stage to make
all necessary choices; an enlightened understanding of all background
information; and 4) a control of agenda that gives people the
opportunity to decide whether and how to place issues on the public agenda.
Benjamin Barber (1984) suggests that effective political talk must be
able to show: articulation of interests, bargaining, and exchange
among participants; persuasion or efforts to reason with different
view points; agenda-setting capability to raise important issues or
topics for discussion; mutuality among participants to consider the
opposing positions; affiliation and affection to examine the issue in
a larger social and cultural context; autonomy from state and
economic control; self-expression in the case of dissent and
disagreement; reformulation and reconceptualization of issues with
substantive contemplation and consideration, not a snapshot of
judgment; and a sense of community-building that helps to establish
conditions for other community involvements.
These theoretical assumptions offer varying insights into how strong
democratic deliberation should be. It is also quite noticeable that
some of the ideas are essentially similar. For the purpose of this
study, the author synthesizes them into a conceptual framework that
forms the foundation of the data collection and analysis. As an
exploratory research, these criteria are applied on Singapore's
online consultation portal as an evaluation tool to assess the
quality of political discourse, and to answer the research question
of: to what extent does Singapore's online consultation practice
reflect the conditions for a strong democratic deliberation?
Table 1 below is a summary of the conceptual framework.
Table 1: Conditions for Strong Democratic Deliberation
Criteria
Definition
Autonomy
Discourse must be free from manipulation of political/economic power.
Equality
Every participant affected by the validity claims under consideration
is equally entitled to introduce and question any assertion whatsoever.
Reflexivity
Participants must critically examine their cultural values,
assumptions, and interests, as well as the larger social context.
Mutuality
Participants must attempt to understand the argument from the other's
perspective. This requires a commitment to an ongoing dialogue with
difference in which interlocutors respectfully listen to each other.
Persuasion
Participants must attempt to show rationality.
Agenda-Setting
The discourse must demonstrate an articulation of interests.
Methodology
Using an embedded single case study research design, the conceptual
framework was applied to examine Singapore's online consultation
practice. The author selected two threads of policy discussions from
the discussion forum of Singapore's online consultation portal:
http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/index.asp. The two threads are:
1. New Measures to Support Parenthood
http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/dis/dis0003.asp?pg=4&topicId=1481&CatId=781
2. Criteria for Immigrants Relaxed
http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/dis/dis0003.asp?topicId=1521&catId=622
The two topics were chosen because of their wider appeals to average
citizens, and the moderate number of postings (74 and 86 postings,
respectively). Since the threads are now closed (e.g. no new comments
can be added), the dataset can be considered as archival records. The
structure of the discussion thread, as well as sample postings, is
shown in Appendix 1.
With target sample clearly defined, the author proceeded to construct
a case research database in an Excel spreadsheet. According to Robert
Yin (2003: 101), the development of a research database will increase
the reliability of the case study and provide resources for a
separate, secondary analysis, independent of any reports by the
original investigator. For the purpose of this study, the database
was structured to collect the following information: name of
participant, date and time of posting, the six criteria as defined by
the conceptual framework, and additional comments.
Content analysis was then performed on the two discussion threads and
the results were recorded in the database. The author examined all
160 postings and marked an "x" on the spreadsheet if the content
demonstrated criteria defined in the conceptual framework. If the
discussion was taken off-topic by the participants, the posting was
marked "N/A" and noted in the comment area. The number of "x" was
then tallied as "points," with higher points suggesting better
showing in a given category. This point system was used as the basis
to draw analysis and conclusion for this study.
The research database with data collected is attached in Appendix 2.
Assumptions & Limitations
This study assumes that the 1) citizens of Singapore are well aware
of this online civic consultation practice; 2) participation of this
online discussion is broad and diverse; and 3) citizen's ability to
participate in this form of citizen-government interaction is not
hampered by the problem of digital divide. These assumptions are
important because if participation is only limited to a selected few,
the data collected will not be reliable and representative, resulting
in a skewed and insignificant study. Singapore's relatively small
population and the high level of Internet penetration may alleviate
the concern over these factors. However, given the difficulty of the
author to conduct actual fieldwork in Singapore, the inability to
further verify these assumptions should be considered as a limitation
of this research.
It is also worth noting that although this study is an important
attempt to begin evaluating the quality and effectiveness of online
consultation, it is by no means a representation of the complete
picture. A comprehensive study of online consultation should include
qualitative (interviews, descriptive studies) and quantitative
(content/discourse analysis) examinations on both groups of
participants (government officials and average citizens) at each of
the three critical stages: pre-consultation, consultation, and
post-consultation. For the purpose of this study, the scope of
investigation will be limited to content analysis on citizen
participants during the consultation stage.
Findings
Content analysis from the selected sample suggests that the practice
of online consultation in Singapore reflects many, if not all
elements of strong democratic deliberation as defined in the
conceptual framework. Overall, the online platform shows that it can
become a public common where citizens can exchange views freely on
major or national issues. The two discussion threads from Singapore's
online consultation portal clearly show indications of autonomy and
equality, both of which received the highest points on the tally (72
and 78 points, respectively). The discussion is free from any
manipulation of political power (no moderator or representatives from
the government is present) and interference of economic entities (no
promotions and advertisement from private business is present). All
participants have equal opportunities to voice their concerns,
introduce new questions, and assert their own opinions.
Generally speaking, the discourse also displays a reasonable sense of
mutuality (32 and 36 points, respectively), where participants
demonstrate appropriate Netiquette and efforts to understand
different perspectives and viewpoints from each other. No defamatory
statement, name-calling, obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated,
hateful, threatening, or any of such materials can be found in this
forum. In addition, participants demonstrate a high degree of logical
persuasion. For example, in the discussion on new measures to support
parenthood, many participants begin their reasoning with similar
structures like this one: "As a parent who response to the past
baby-bonus system of having 2 kids before 30 years old, I find the
new system unfair to me." (comment by user "Frederick" on 8/27/2004
02:46:44AM) and follow by a list of assertions or questions.
Participants state their cases and frequently make use of bullet
points, numbered lists, and sub-titles, as well as examples to
support their claim. All of these characteristics demonstrate the
participants' ability to engage in logical reasoning and discussion.
Although these are positive signs for a strong democratic
deliberation, research data also suggests that the discourse has a
comparatively lower degree of reflexivity (19 and 27 points,
respectively). In most instances, participants examine the issue at
hand in relation to their personal experiences or circumstances,
without critically considering the problem with larger social and
cultural assumptions and values. While this trend is prevalent among
users, it is not the case for all. Some participants do make strong
efforts to connect with the bigger picture. For example, on the
question of relaxing immigration laws in Singapore, one comment
suggests that, "the whole notion for this approach is to boost the
population and to supplement the work force in 20 to 50 years down
the road. In 50 years down the road, what kind of effects will there
be?" (comment by user "Marcus" on 10/30/2004 02:28:17PM)
In addition, the discussion also lacks the evidence to demonstrate
any ability for the participant to engage in agenda-setting, which
received the lowest points among all categories (12 and 24,
respectively). Agenda-setting is an important characteristic for
self-governing and strong democracy because it stresses an
articulation of interests and the ability to generate new topics
often by connecting the issue with larger social and cultural
considerations. More often than not, participants are able to express
their interests and concerns, but they fail to raise new questions or
topics for future discussion. For example, one user writes, "I'm
rather surprise and disappointed that the Government had miss an
important issue - Paternity leave" (comment by user "Lau Yong Hong"
on 8/30/2004 08:59:02PM) without mentioning the issue in a larger
context of the economy or labor laws.
Table 2 below is a summary of the findings with comments from the
content analysis:
Table 2: Summary of Research Findings
Criteria
Achieved
Comments
Autonomy
Yes
Discourse is free from manipulation of political/economic power.
Equality
Yes
Every participant affected by the validity claims under consideration
is equally entitled to introduce and question any assertion whatsoever.
Reflexivity
No
Participants fail to critically examine their cultural values,
assumptions, and interests, as well as the larger social context.
Mutuality
Yes
Participants attempt to understand the argument from the other's perspective.
Persuasion
Yes
Participants show certain degree of rationality in their reasoning
Agenda-Setting
No
The discourse did not demonstrate an articulation of interests and
the ability to generate new topics.
Discussion & Analysis
This study sets out to explore the extent to which Singapore's online
consultation practice reflect the condition of a "strong democratic
deliberation." The findings, as described in the previous section,
show that the two discourses demonstrate certain characteristics
outlined in the conceptual framework. Two key characteristics about
Singapore's online consultation stand out from the observation of
this research. First, while the absence of moderator provides a
condition for autonomy, it also opens the door for potential anarchy.
Without adequate moderation and monitoring, the discourse can be
easily taken off topic by the participants. For example, the
discussion on immigration laws turns into a debate on graduate
admissions policy toward the end. In addition, the discussion shows
vulnerability of being "hijacked" by individuals, intentionally or
unintentionally. For instance, the user "foomt" has 16 postings (out
of the total of 74) on the immigration law discussion. Toward the end
of discussion on new measure to support parenthood, the user "Linus"
and "Robert Teh" engage in a heated debate on an irrelevant issue.
These observations are no surprise it is common in a
computer-mediated environment that communications become arbitrary
and out of control, as previous studies on Internet chartrooms,
mailing lists, discussion forums or message board have shown (Wilhem, 2000).
Second, participants of the discourse rarely refer to the background
information (relevant laws, speeches...etc.) that government provided
on the website. Instead of citing official records provided on the
consultation website to back up their claims, participants often use
personal beliefs and sometimes inappropriate language to support
their arguments. For example, a participant who argues against tax
measures to promote parenthood writes "Those who agrees
wholeheartedly with this policy are basically those who get to
benefit from it. What a bunch of blood-sucking vampires! And what a
bunch of foolish & weak kings who provides OTHERS' blood to these
vampires" (comment by user "foomt" on 9/12/2004 10:50:36AM).
These two problems may have profound impact on the quality and
effectiveness of the online consultation. If the government of
Singapore is committed to build an alternative conduit to seek
citizen feedbacks via the Internet, the discourse that occurs on
these online forums must move away from simple assertions drawing
from personal beliefs and circumstances to a more matured and
in-depth discussion that critically examines the cultural values,
assumptions, and interests in the larger context. A hijacked
discussion taken off-topic and dominated by emotional rants does not
bold well with government officials who are supposed to take these
public comments seriously. It can also signify that the opinions
expressed in these public forums may not be representative of the
larger public a condition that can impede the reliability of data
collected for this research (see Assumptions & Limitations).
Fortunately, these are only isolated instances that leave enough
rooms for improvement.
The two problems mentioned above can be addressed with adjustments of
the online consultation practice in terms of "procedure" and
"structure." Procedurally, the discourse will benefit from a proper
amount moderation that does not control or manipulate, but monitors
the direction of the discussion. It will also be advantageous if
participants can be briefed with relevant background information
before/during the consultation process. These changes can be achieved
with a structural re-design that further integrates new media
technologies into the online consultation portal. For example,
web-related application can be used to provide live moderation (via
web-casting/streaming) or to create flash movies, games, and other
interactive features to encourage understanding of background issues
in order to better prepare participants for a meaningful deliberation.
Despite some small blemishes and a need for improvement, it should be
noted that Singapore's initiative to incorporate and encourage
citizen participation in the policy making process speaks volumes for
itself. For a country deemed by Western conventional wisdom as
"undemocratic," the practice of online consultation in Singapore is a
strong evidence to prove that ICTs may potentially enhance the
democratic process, even if institutionalized forms of democracy
remain limited at best.
Conclusion
To summarize, this study is an attempt to evaluate the quality and
effectiveness of online consultation in Singapore. The author asks
the research question of: to what extent does Singapore's online
consultation practice reflect the conditions for a strong democratic
deliberation? From the data collected, it is reasonable to conclude
that the development of online consultation in Singapore has yet to
reach the condition for strong democratic deliberation, in which
participants can discuss policy issues with autonomy, equality,
reflexivity, mutuality, persuasion, and agenda-setting. In addition,
the findings suggest that a better structural design and moderation
may improve the overall quality and effectiveness of the online
consultation. While the system is not yet perfect, however, it is
important to recognize that the government of Singapore is making
positive efforts to include greater citizen participation in the
decision making process.
This research also opens the door for many future studies. For
instance, is Singapore's online consultation practice more effective
than others? What kind of social or technological mechanism (e.g.
digital interactive applications) can enhance the structure of this
deliberative process and fulfill the need for stronger moderation?
How about the social, political and economic implication of online
consultation? These are some of the research questions that should be
considered for future explorations. As for the evaluation of online
consultation, a continual effort to measure both the goal of the
government and the needs of the users, including the government
agencies, businesses and citizens, is essential.
Singapore is only one of many governments around the world to push
for greater citizen participations via the Internet. For online
consultation practitioners in both public and private sectors, it is
important to recognize that the road to strong democratic
deliberation is often a trial-and-error process. There is no
universal solution to address the needs of different nations and its
citizens. Individual governments should explore the experience of
others and determine what they can provide, and what the people want.
To that end, this paper offers the perspective from Singapore, where
the government has integrated its vision for digital governance with
a unique model of online consultation practice.
Bibliography
Benjamin, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a
New Age. Bekeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). 9-11. NY, NY: Seven Stories Press.
Clift, S. (2004). "Online Consultations and Events - Top Ten Tips for
Government and Civic Hosts." Available at:
http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html (Accessed 11/20/04).
Crozier, M., Huntington, S. & Watanuki, J. (1975). "The crisis of
democracy : report on the governability of democracies to the
Trilateral Commission. " New York: New York University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). "Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public
Sphere: A Critical Analysis." Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication. Vol 7.
Day, Richard, et al. (1988). Democratic Theory and Technological
Society. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Ferdinand, P. (2000). The Internet, Democracy and Democratization.
London: Frank Cass.
Fishkin, F. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for
Democratic Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Foot, K & Schneider, S. (2002). "Online Action in Campaign 2000: An
Exploratory Analysis of the U.S. Political Web Sphere." Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(2), pp. 222-244.
Fountain, J. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information
Technology and Institutional Change. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Gibson, R., Rommele, A. & Ward, S. (2004). Electronic Democracy:
Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via New ICTs. London;
New York: Routledge.
Hague, B. & Loader, B. (1999). Digital Democracy: Discourse and
Decision Making in the Information Age. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
Macintosh, A. & Whyte, A. (2002). "An evaluation framework for
e-consultations?" Paper presented at The International Association
for Official Statistics conference, London, UK.
OECD. (2001). Public Management Policy Brief: Engaging Citizens in
Policy Making: Information, Consultation, and Public Participation Paris, OECD.
Pilger, J. (2002). New Rulers of the World. London, UK: Verso.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: University of Harvard Press.
Rosen, T. (2001) E-Democracy in Practice: Swedish experiences of a
new political tool. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and
Swedish Federation of County Councils and Regions. Available at:
http://www.svekom.se/skvad/E-democracy-en.pdf. Accessed 11/27/04.
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UK Cabinet Office. (2000). Code of Practice on Written Consultation.
Available at:
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/servicefirst/index/consultation.htm.
Accessed 11/24/04.
Wilhelm, A. (2000). Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to
Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Yankelovich, Y. (1990). Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy
Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Can You Hear Me Now? Evaluating Online Consultation in Singapore
4
Appendix 1 Structure of a Discussion Thread
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
Appendix 1 (Cont.) Sample Postings
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
Appendix 2 Research Database and Data Collected
Discussion 1: Immigration Law
User Name
Post Time
Autonomy
Equality
Refelxivity
Mutuality
Persuasion
Agenda
Notes
1
foomt
11/12/2004 08:59:08PM
x
x
2
keop
27/11/2004 09:04:26AM
x
x
x
x
x
3
Lai CF
25/11/2004 09:26:47PM
x
x
x
4
Lai CF
24/11/2004 10:41:14PM
x
x
x
x
5
mother
24/11/2004 02:20:34PM
x
x
x
6
Sotong
24/11/2004 09:24:08AM
x
x
x
x
x
7
Lai CF
19/11/2004 10:24:33PM
x
x
x
8
Tan Poh
19/11/2004 09:17:18AM
x
x
x
9
K. Ang
18/11/2004 02:30:43PM
x
x
x
10
Aghast
15/11/2004 05:00:57PM
x
x
x
x
11
Keok S. Tan
08/11/2004 03:42:00AM
x
x
x
12
Keok
08/11/2004 03:21:43AM
x
x
x
13
jee
03/11/2004 02:14:35PM
x
x
x
x
14
Servant
03/11/2004 09:04:18AM
x
x
x
15
albert
30/10/2004 06:19:08PM
x
x
x
16
Marcus
30/10/2004 02:28:17PM
x
x
x
x
17
Clear Vision
28/10/2004 02:31:00AM
x
x
18
foomt
15/10/2004 10:21:47AM
x
x
x
x
19
foomt
14/10/2004 11:11:56AM
x
x
x
x
20
L. Poh
14/10/2004 10:15:59AM
x
x
x
21
Anonymous
14/10/2004 10:02:31AM
x
x
x
x
x
22
Anonymous
14/10/2004 09:56:57AM
x
x
23
Jscy
13/10/2004 07:30:27PM
x
x
x
x
x
24
JJ
13/10/2004 10:13:10AM
x
x
x
25
Lau Niu
13/10/2004 10:03:05AM
x
x
x
x
26
Jscy
12/10/2004 10:58:57PM
x
x
x
x
x
27
Robert Teh
10/10/2004 09:24:15PM
x
x
x
x
28
kongct
09/10/2004 06:17:52PM
x
x
x
29
Goek L
09/10/2004 02:46:06PM
x
x
30
Anonymous
09/10/2004 11:43:31AM
x
x
x
x
x
x
31
Anonymous
09/10/2004 11:41:27AM
x
x
32
Lee Dynasty
07/10/2004 04:11:33PM
x
x
x
x
x
33
Poh G.
07/10/2004 09:07:37AM
x
x
x
34
Anonymous
06/10/2004 12:53:35PM
x
x
x
35
AU KAH KAY
05/10/2004 09:48:11AM
x
x
x
x
x
36
Servant
04/10/2004 11:14:10AM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
37
Ye Lin
04/10/2004 08:36:01AM
x
x
x
38
Goek L
01/10/2004 08:32:49PM
x
x
x
39
Anonymous
30/09/2004 11:24:26AM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
40
Wai Hong
26/09/2004 03:31:20PM
x
x
x
41
Servant
26/09/2004 09:36:08AM
x
x
x
x
x
x
42
foomt
25/09/2004 11:52:09PM
x
x
x
x
43
JJ
25/09/2004 11:47:11AM
x
x
x
x
44
foomt
25/09/2004 11:18:41AM
x
x
x
x
45
JJ
24/09/2004 04:51:49PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
46
foomt
24/09/2004 01:27:26PM
x
x
47
foomt
24/09/2004 01:23:19PM
x
x
x
48
Servant
24/09/2004 09:44:39AM
x
x
x
x
x
49
foomt
21/09/2004 12:26:55PM
x
x
x
50
foomt
21/09/2004 12:19:34PM
x
x
x
51
foomt
19/09/2004 10:36:41AM
x
x
x
52
foomt
17/09/2004 10:30:36PM
x
x
x
x
53
Anonymous
16/09/2004 01:01:15PM
x
x
x
54
foomt
15/09/2004 02:31:17PM
x
x
x
x
55
foomt
15/09/2004 02:24:14PM
x
x
x
56
JJ
14/09/2004 11:10:34PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
57
Anonymous
14/09/2004 09:42:20PM
x
x
x
58
AU KAH KAY
14/09/2004 03:35:19PM
x
x
x
x
59
Harry Lee
14/09/2004 10:01:56AM
x
x
x
60
foomt
14/09/2004 09:24:40AM
x
x
61
Lim Poh
13/09/2004 04:49:47PM
x
x
x
x
x
62
hmm
13/09/2004 04:30:42PM
x
x
x
x
x
63
Anonymous
12/09/2004 10:19:19PM
x
x
x
x
64
Robert Teh
12/09/2004 08:36:35PM
x
x
x
65
Anonymous
12/09/2004 01:30:53PM
x
x
x
x
66
foomt
12/09/2004 10:05:23AM
x
x
67
Anonymous
11/09/2004 10:41:14PM
x
x
x
68
foomt
11/09/2004 02:49:24PM
x
x
69
JJ
11/09/2004 11:24:40AM
x
x
x
x
70
Wang Caiyun
10/09/2004 07:43:23PM
x
x
x
x
71
meng teck
09/09/2004 03:37:08PM
x
x
x
x
72
Albert
09/09/2004 01:18:27PM
x
x
x
73
Lau Niu
09/09/2004 09:43:59AM
x
x
x
x
74
Irwin Gan
08/09/2004 05:42:23PM
x
x
Total Points
72
72
19
32
51
12
Discussion 2: New Measures to Support Parenthood
User Name
Post Time
Autonomy
Equality
Refelxivity
Mutuality
Persuasion
Agenda
Notes
1
Lee Dynasty
12/11/2004 11:56:53PM
x
x
2
Lai CF
11/11/2004 01:17:55PM
x
x
x
x
3
Robert Teh
26/10/2004 08:57:33PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
4
Linus
25/10/2004 06:18:55PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
5
Robert Teh
22/10/2004 12:31:48AM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
6
Linus
18/10/2004 06:03:23PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
7
Robert Teh
15/10/2004 11:46:32PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
8
Linus
14/10/2004 09:40:24PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
9
Robert Teh
14/10/2004 07:15:02PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
10
Linus
13/10/2004 08:30:46PM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
off topic
11
Robert Teh
09/10/2004 11:41:02PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
kongct
09/10/2004 06:04:48PM
x
x
x
x
x
13
Robert Teh
29/09/2004 11:46:38PM
x
x
x
x
14
Robert Teh
27/09/2004 07:52:00PM
x
x
x
15
Singapore_beggar
27/09/2004 10:06:13AM
x
x
x
x
16
Servant
23/09/2004 11:16:32AM
x
x
x
17
Irwin Gan
21/09/2004 11:59:36PM
x
x
18
Linus
17/09/2004 08:42:00PM
x
x
x
19
Steven Goh
16/09/2004 09:10:45PM
x
x
x
x
20
Christina Ho
16/09/2004 03:58:56PM
x
x
21
Black Knight
16/09/2004 01:07:26PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
22
Ling SM
16/09/2004 02:11:33AM
x
x
x
x
x
x
23
Uncertain
15/09/2004 03:18:19PM
x
x
x
x
24
Jerren Jee
12/09/2004 12:37:29PM
x
x
x
x
25
foomt
12/09/2004 10:50:36AM
x
x
26
Brendan Yong
09/09/2004 07:34:50PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
27
Silas Tan
09/09/2004 11:51:18AM
x
x
x
x
28
Harry Lee
07/09/2004 03:07:23PM
x
x
x
29
ann
07/09/2004 11:03:03AM
x
x
x
x
30
skyhawk
06/09/2004 04:36:24PM
x
x
x
x
31
Lee Dynasty
06/09/2004 12:43:05AM
x
x
x
x
32
Servant
05/09/2004 12:59:37PM
x
x
x
33
Sunny
04/09/2004 11:47:10PM
x
x
x
34
William
02/09/2004 04:19:29PM
x
x
x
x
35
Alice Chan
02/09/2004 02:12:04PM
x
x
36
skyhawk
02/09/2004 11:18:54AM
x
x
x
37
Kevin
01/09/2004 11:04:56PM
x
x
x
38
lsh
01/09/2004 05:12:46PM
x
x
x
39
Servant
01/09/2004 10:28:31AM
x
x
x
x
40
Jeffrey Lim
31/08/2004 10:58:59PM
x
x
x
41
Susan Leong
31/08/2004 08:30:52PM
x
x
x
x
42
Simon Mok
31/08/2004 12:21:36PM
x
x
x
43
skyprince
31/08/2004 11:56:16AM
x
x
x
44
Lai CF
30/08/2004 11:26:43PM
x
x
x
x
x
45
Lau Yong Hong
30/08/2004 08:59:02PM
x
x
x
46
Donalle
30/08/2004 08:07:26PM
x
x
47
Caroline
30/08/2004 05:49:09PM
x
x
x
48
Francis Seah
30/08/2004 03:34:10PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
49
Jamie
30/08/2004 02:50:00PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
50
Sue
30/08/2004 02:18:03PM
x
x
x
51
Diana
30/08/2004 02:11:01PM
x
x
x
x
x
52
Linus
30/08/2004 01:52:24PM
x
x
x
x
53
ann again
30/08/2004 10:38:33AM
x
x
54
ann
30/08/2004 10:34:07AM
x
x
55
Sandra
30/08/2004 08:22:46AM
x
x
x
56
Wee Hong
29/08/2004 11:15:37PM
x
x
x
57
James
29/08/2004 04:29:13PM
x
x
x
x
58
Gavin Tan
29/08/2004 03:33:34PM
x
x
x
x
59
Daniel
29/08/2004 02:18:20PM
x
x
x
x
60
Mdm Lim
29/08/2004 08:19:14AM
x
x
x
61
Raymond
28/08/2004 10:46:33PM
x
x
x
x
62
Song Wee
28/08/2004 06:42:02PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
63
Shoen
28/08/2004 02:24:23PM
x
x
x
64
Suwei
28/08/2004 01:51:22PM
x
x
x
65
Helen Lee
28/08/2004 01:28:02PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
66
Liew
28/08/2004 12:30:41PM
x
x
x
x
x
67
Hafsah Abdullah
28/08/2004 08:44:03AM
x
x
x
x
68
Joseph Choo
27/08/2004 11:58:04PM
x
x
x
69
Rosminah Rohani
27/08/2004 11:34:40PM
x
x
x
70
IVF
27/08/2004 11:32:25PM
x
x
x
71
Yean Tay
27/08/2004 11:18:11PM
x
x
x
x
72
goek
27/08/2004 10:26:48PM
x
x
x
x
73
OSK
27/08/2004 06:25:50PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
74
Marc
27/08/2004 05:11:05PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
75
Linus
27/08/2004 05:02:21PM
x
x
x
x
76
LOO YEOW
27/08/2004 04:25:50PM
x
x
x
77
J Tay
27/08/2004 02:28:35PM
x
x
x
x
x
78
Servant
27/08/2004 01:42:34PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
79
LO
27/08/2004 12:48:08PM
x
x
x
x
x
80
Lily
27/08/2004 10:36:02AM
x
x
x
x
x
81
Frederick
27/08/2004 02:46:44AM
x
x
x
x
x
x
82
Kellie
27/08/2004 02:34:28AM
x
x
x
x
x
x
83
??
26/08/2004 11:16:10PM
x
x
x
x
84
Marc
26/08/2004 10:42:55PM
x
x
x
x
x
x
85
Ivan
26/08/2004 09:52:44PM
x
x
x
x
x
86
Linus
26/08/2004 12:43:37PM
x
x
x
x
Total Points
78
78
27
36
65
24
[1] Online consultation is also known as eRulemaking in the United
States. See: eRulemaking Research Group at the University of
Pittsburgh; and eRulemaking Resource Website at the Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.
|
