Reading the many criticisms of government that some of the more articulate and outspoken bloggers tabled on this website, I gather that the thing which agonized and angered them most is the blatant double standards that sometimes become obvious in certain decisions made. A most obvious one is where certain parties are allowed to hold a gathering while certain other parties are not, especially when the gathering takes the form of a show of protest, demanding certain things from the authorities, or gathering public support. Other criticisms involves the issue of conflicting information, explanations that are incomplete or readily refuteable, or not making any when the public most wanted it. As regard decisions which do not please certain quarters or against their wish, we must always remember that the government must act in the interest of the majortiy, for the common weal, and no government can please everybody all the time.
So the 'double stadard' and 'conflicting or inadequate information' issues are really the culprit which offended the critics of government most. Differences of opinion and priorities which must be upheld are the previlege of the government in power to adhere to and what the Cabinet and Parliament dicided must become the order of the day in a Parliamentary democracy.
Can the government, therefore, take a closer look at some of the decisions made which the bloggers and critics say reflect double standards and the 'information flow' from government authorities which sometimes contradict each other, cancel or negate each other, and sometimes comes in drip and pieces ( or none at all) when the public are clamouring for an explaination. If the Police decided to disallow public gatherings to protest against any issue, all parties should therefore be diallowed to do so. There shouldn't be any exceptions and excuses like " we can't stop such gathering." If the nature of the gatherings are different to justify the permission granted to one group and not to the other, it should be properly and convincingly explained. Don't give explanation just for the sake of saying something or in pribahasa Melayu " melepas batuk di tangga."
That ties up with the question of examining the information flow. When information or explanation given by various authorities contradits and negates each other, curiousity is never satisfied or minimized but rather maximized to become a gnawing disbelief. Can you them blame the critics if they say that there's a cover up, that someone is hiding the truth etc.etc. When no complete information is yet availabe, just say so. Stunted of stilted information can become disinformation. It can set off more rumours rather than stop dangerous conjectures. A most annoying thing is when a report is witten but the public is not duely informed of its content. It the surest way of inviting wild speculations.
I feel it's most urgent that government serously check on these two issues as raised by the critics and enraged bloggers. Otherwise many explanation given by government with all the contradictions, the gaps and the missing links ( real or imagined), will continue to widen the communication gap between the critical bloggers and the government. Worst, it can split society along the lines or differing views and interests.