How should the Government handle rumours?

by Loh Chee Kong

TODAY Online Aug 18, 2012

In the lead-up to the country's birthday this month, the talk of
the town - and even across the Causeway - was about the "news" that
wasn't.

A rumour that former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
had died started circulating on Twitter at least five days before the
National Day Parade, with journalists asked by just about everyone -
friends, parents, the neighbourhood barber - about its veracity. And
despite a couple of journalists' efforts to debunk the rumour online, it
continued to spread, spilling over into the heartlands via word of
mouth and SMSes.

It reportedly generated some of the most
searched terms on Google during that period, and was rolling off the
tongues of housewives and taxi drivers as well. Internet chatter became
coffee shop talk.

This is not the first time that rumours
have circulated about the health of one of Singapore's founding fathers
and former Prime Minister. But never before, it is fair to say, had the
speculation spread so virulently, quickly and widely.

In
an age where more than one in two Singapore residents is ostensibly on
Facebook - that's 2,712,060 users here - social media has become the
megaphone that amplifies rumours exponentially.

So what has
been puzzling to many was the radio silence during the week from the
Government, which in the past has found ways, direct or otherwise, to
dispel such misinformation.

POTENTIAL FOR MISCHIEF


The hoax, of course, was laid to rest when Mr Lee turned up at the
parade in good health - an image simultaneously beamed to television
sets across the island. Within a mere couple of hours, the Instagram
image posted on TODAY's Facebook page had been shared tens of thousands
of times, and commented on excitedly.

The incident provides
much to chew on, including how it demonstrated a widespread belief,
misguided or otherwise, among Singaporeans that the Government would
withhold important information for expediency.

Just as
important, well-educated Singapore society - as a whole, as well as at
the individual level - was found wanting in its ready credulity. A
society susceptible to rumours is an easy target for any troublemaker,
with the new media as an accomplice.

A case in point: In
India on Thursday, thousands from the north-east of the country fled
southern cities after rumours they would be attacked by Muslims in
reprisal for recent ethnic violence. Bangalore Deputy Commissioner of
Police Vincent S D'Souza told AFP: "Mischief-mongers and vested
interests are misusing social media, mobile and the Internet to spread
these rumours and create panic."

In business, listed
companies pro-actively and regularly rebut rumours. In politics,
election campaigns are won or lost on the basis of how well untruths are
debunked.

So why did the state machinery - which recently
added a Chief of Government Communications to its ranks - not rebut the
rumour about Mr Lee's health?

IN PAST INSTANCES


Granted, there is the risk that addressing rumours (which breed
effortlessly in cyberpace) ends up lending them credence, and encourages
even more rumour-mongering, not to mention a public expectation that
the Government will rebut every untruth - failing which, the assumption
is "it must be true".

The Government's long-held stance is
that it does not deal in rumours. But surely, given how this particular
rumour gained traction and created protracted public anxiety, some sort
of response - not necessarily an official one - was merited?


A distinction should also be made between disinformation and
misinformation. While the latter would eventually die out,
disinformation - driven by malicious intent - is harder to quash and
should be nipped in the bud.

In 2010, a former Singaporean
claimed on his blog that Mr Lee had suffered a massive heart attack and
was slammed by netizens for what he quickly admitted was a hoax.


The Government had declined comment, but a routine and unrelated
statement was triggered by Mr Lee's visit (as Minister Mentor) to London
at the time.

Today, Mr Lee does not hold any Cabinet
position. It may, or may not, have been a factor in why it was felt
unnecessary to officially rebut the rumour. But is this not where the
Government's social media strategy should have come into play?

MPS: NO NEED TO REBUT


A number of People's Action Party MPs and Cabinet ministers have
been cultivating an active presence on Twitter and Facebook. A simple,
by-the-way tweet or post from any of them could have stopped the rumour
in its tracks. Instead, the silence fuelled the speculation.


At its height, there were comments circulating which were attributed
to Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Chia Shi Lu. The problem was that Dr Chia's
comments - stating that Mr Lee was in good health when he met him on
April 9 - were made months earlier in response to the rumour mill then.
That fact did not stop websites and online forums from perpetuating Dr
Chia's remarks as if they were recently made, as a result of which,
netizens not only gave Dr Chia grief, they also found more reason to
believe the hearsay.

MPs that TODAY spoke to explained that
they saw no need to rebut the latest falsehood about Mr Lee's health
given that the National Day Parade was just a few days away. Some, like
MPs Denise Phua and Zaqy Mohamad and Acting Manpower Minister Tan
Chuan-Jin, only alluded to the rumours after the event.

"Mr
Lee's appearance would have been the best response," said Mr Tan, who
had reposted TODAY's picture of Mr Lee on his Facebook page on National
Day.

Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said: "To be honest, I
didn't have the information - we don't come in contact with him on a
daily basis. In the past there have been other rumours, we can't be
checking on his health every time. In future, there could be rumours
again. So if the MPs respond to this one, but don't respond to future
rumours, then people may think something is amiss."

BE DISCERNING


Mr Baey, a public relations practitioner, said had there not been
an opportunity for Mr Lee to make a public appearance, and had the
rumour continued, then MPs could take steps. For instance, "if there had
been a grassroots event where we saw him, we could then casually post
on Facebook. Such a subtle note would be better".

What
about the mainstream media, one might ask. To some extent it was faced
with a similar dilemma: Should it devote column space to debunk every
rumour floating around? This paper's position is that we will address
those that have a wide-ranging effect on the whole of society. But for
us to do that, the stakeholders have to give the media something to
debunk the rumour with.

Yet it is also important that the
Government - when grappling with disinformation, rumours, untruths,
myths and smears - not go overboard, either, in feeling compelled to
respond regularly and with equal weightage to every nugget. Nuance is
key.

As both Mr Baey and Mr Tan point out, ultimately, it
is a judgement call whether a rumour warrants a response, "and if so, in
what form", as Mr Tan put it.

"If it has a severe impact
on national interests, there would be a need to respond as quickly as
possible … especially when it has the possibility of viralling out of
control and spilling over into real actions.

"For example, race and religious issues," said Mr Tan.


"The important thing is for readers to realise that not everything
is as it seems, and the spirit of discernment is critical."

Hopefully, the education process - on both sides - is underway, thanks to an episode that will serve as a cautionary tale.