Originally posted by anonymouscoward:
So our Govt wants to reach out to Singaporeans and its new chair-person said that REACH will promise more down-to-earth responses rather than the usual high-handed govt replies?
Look at REACH, then look at the participation rate, the number of posts vs replies vs reads, then look at how many replies are from Govt?
The answer?
The participation rate is downright disappointing. Someone post, most read and almost nobody care to reply. Worst of all, NONE of the replies are from the govt. Is this reaching out?
It's more like simply creating a terrible forum site for people to rant and put up their suggestion. Then like all other govt agencies, the let the matter die of its own natural death.
How sad.
It is symptomatic of the whole governance process - sense of insecurity, bureaucracy, self-praise, self-congratulating and self-justificating.
It is an agency which was created orignally to appease the people for lack of expression and freedom of speech and to show to the outside world that allis fine pretending that they are listening and willing to listen.
Just look at the milestone events as follows to see for yourself how responsive is the feedback unit from the day of its creation to its recent demise:-
(1) 2000-2002 :- forumers frequently have had their posts deleted on the slightest excuse like being out-of-point or out-of-bound deviation. (Obviously this reflected only their leaders' inability to let people think and write their own thoughts on any topic or subject)
(2) 2002-2004 :- forumers were reported to the police because of the lack of polite language in posting in protest against deletions of posts.
(3) 2004-2006 :- forumers have grown wearied of the one-way dialogue and many of them have stopped posting. Suggestion to create a two-way feedback was ignored. So more and more forumers deserted the process despite all the beautiful website and brochures and thank-you invitations to visit their regular sessions.
If an agency calls itself Feedback Unit ends up with such desertion it is a straightforward failure. But Feedback Unit appears to be thickskinned and pretends that it is no problem and tries to give a new website and new brochures and pretend all is well because it is using public monies which is of no problem since no body is able to object or protest such useless process or spending.
So a big panel continues to spend all the taxpayers monies to do a useless one-way dialogue.
It would appear that some regulars were frequently engaged to give one-sided view praising the government and leaders to no end instead of providing objective feedbacks.
Just do a little review of the feedback, and see for yourself how many times people have given feedback on the wrong of increasing all kinds of fees and double-charging on land and triple charging on vehicles.
If Feedback Unit has been useful people will not be voting with their feet and deserting the feedback.
It is sad that there is no evaluation of the feedback process but only padding of their own backs, careless spending of arge sum of monies printing huge volumes of feedback brochures and doing expensive websites and holding expensive sessions that serve only justification of big-title jobs and salaries.
The 20 major policy errors including the high-cost problem were posted frequently by forumers with no solutions in sight. If Feedback Unit is useful surely by 2006, some ministers would be reversing the old perpetual fee increases affecting so many lower and middle income families.
It is a sheer waste of public fund to persist in a process which provides no results and no returns except the pretences to justify existing poor records.
