This backs up the observation that the rich countries are the one mostly benefiting from the Information Age. As reported earlier in the item "Singapore - The quiet Achiever", Singapore already has a good majority of their citizens connected, with a goal of having all connected at least to the national on-line service (SingaporeONE) any tick of the clock. Per capita, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong lead the way. In countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India and Philippines, internet access is highly skewed to those who can access through educational or business accounts, and to the upper middle to upper classes, though many of these countries are aware of the problem and are making some efforts to widen access to provincial and lower income groups.

The China Internet Report, authored by the China Network Information Center (CNIC) estimates that 1,175,000 China residents are connected to the Internet, 90% being those with over 12 years education and the great majority being students, government, science and educational users and the IT and telecommunications industries.

Though internet access in Asia is restricted to many by cost, and in the case of several countries by censorship and other restrictions, there can be no argument that the Internet is becoming a major source of information for Asians. The Anwar inspired democracy groups in Malaysia claim the Internet has been useful in publicising their cause, through avenues such as Web sites, email and news groups. Similarly, the Burmese activist groups have used the Internet to their advantage in influencing international opinion, even though Internet access is either non-existant, or extremely difficult in Burma/Myanmar itself.

Which brings us to the question of how we deal with all this new information, for it is now more than 15 years ago now that the amount of information available on-line surpassed all the information available on paper.

Now lets face it, 90% of what you read, on the Internet or via traditional means is crap, to put it mildly. The internet does not have a corner on incorrect, biased, misleading or propagandist information. One only has to read the Malaysian or Chinese local press today, or the Indonesian and Singaporean press of 5 years ago to know that.

And Asia is certainly not the sole purveyors. Our own management theories and popular books are more often than not bulldust disguised with the perfume of "peer review", smart marketing or hype. Let's review for example, Roger Whitehead's post-hoc summary on what became the management bible for many ten years ago. Peters and Waterman's "In Search of Excellence" was published on paper, distributed widely in bookshops throughout Asia, and "excellence" became yet another pearl of meaningless jargon on the lips of many Asian and international CEO's

..There was a rather well-known book, published in 1982, called "In Search of Excellence", written by one Tom Peters, with Robert Waterman. That too attempted to erect a model of corporate excellence.

The authors, both ex-McKinsey, applied its Seven-S model to 43 companies whom they rated as "excellent", according to six financial measures. From this exercise they deduced a list of principles that organizations should adopt if they craved excellence.

Just five years after its publication, two-thirds of the companies listed in the book were in trouble. Fourteen at most could still be held up as examples of good corporate management.

That same year, Tom Peters brought out his first solo book, "Thriving on Chaos". He began its first chapter with the words: "There are no excellent companies". He elaborated little on this verdict, beyond saying that the era of sustained excellence was over.

As a recantation this was as terse as the rest of the book (getting on for 600 pages) was wordy. The index, itself 19 pages long, contained just one mention of the notion of excellence. Peters had a new theme to explore.

Here, in effect, was the co-creator and populariser of one of the most eagerly pursued concepts in modern business turning round to his followers and saying, without apology or admission of error, "Forget all that; listen to this." And people did, and they still do.

What Peters didn't go on to say, of course, was ". . . and, as a matter of principle, I'm returning all the money I made from the book and the seminars and the video." There are limits to repentance. 8-)

Roger Whitehead
Director, Office Futures / Editor, E-Commerce Tracker

Censoring the press or the Internet is an insult to the intelligence of any country. It basically conveys the message that the government does not trust the ability of their people to judge the credibility of what they read. Alternatively, it is an admission that the government's education department has failed. Whatever the explanation, its ultimate conclusion will be to reduce the competitiveness of the country as a whole, even though internally things may be more comfortable and we may be spared such media celebrities like Larry King and the mass of assorted talking faces on Indonesian tellie as we have at the moment.

Only by learning how to evaluate opposing points of view logically and clearly can we survive in the Information age. Singapore's alternative strategy to counter anti-Singapore material on the Internet by posting positive material rather than censor it which was the early knee jerk reaction, is showing all signs of paying off. They still do both of course, but the positive approach seems to be having more success.

You never will be able to believe everything you read...

..'Cept if it's the Rat of course!...