How might Singaporean society differ if it weren't for these technologies? Would the company be more or less heavily regulated? Lee recommends analyzing politics and society by addressing how power struggles and relations played out in the pre-Internet era, namely the maintenance of political control through public support (2005: 74). Foucault defines “governmentality” as the point of contact in which the technologies of power interact with the governed. This prompts Lee to posit that, to maintain power in the Internet age, “governments must be actively involved in shaping the design, as well as the social, cultural, and regulatory environment in which the Internet and other new media technologies operate.” . 2005: 75). One example of how the Singapore government has used technology to instill greater confidence and restore faltering public trust is its online tax filing system. The e-Filing system has been described as one of the most definitive e-government projects, introduced by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) as a trust-building mechanism (Tan et al., 2005: 2). The e-filing system has been a notable success for e-Government. The success of the e-filing system is unprecedented in terms of compliance and has managed to reverse negative public opinion at a phenomenal rate (Tan et al., 2005: 2). Srivastava and Teo explored how the Singapore government used its “citizen trust” on technology initiatives to promote and maintain trust in e-Government (2005: 721). According to them, this has largely been achieved by promoting measures aimed at building institutional trust through transparency and soliciting citizen feedback. They attributed the huge success of Singapore's e-government programs...... middle of paper ......, which track users' digital footprints and activities. Physical surveillance, in the form of Internet browsing and hacking, is technically feasible but fiscally infeasible. This measure also compromises privacy and democracy. In contrast, using legislation to regulate and/or control the Internet has a number of advantages in terms of ease of enforcement, feasibility and transparency of judicial processes (Johal, 2004: 4). However, the legislation is deliberately vague and the language ambiguous, allowing flexibility of interpretation in the event of new developments (Endeshaw, 1996: 210). For example, the Internet Code of Conduct which states that "(p)prohibited material is objectionable material for reasons of public interest, public morality, public order, public security, national harmony" (in Johal, 2004: 5).