In response to a letter to the Straits Times by Choo Zheng Xi (see here) on the power of the Internet in engaging “new constituencies of tech-savvy voters”, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said that the Government “(has) been reviewing [its] light-touch approach and [is] considering how [it] could take a lighter-touch approach.”
Choo had earlier singled out the Films Act and called it “surprisingly retrograde”.
“Section 33 bans the ‘making, distribution and exhibition’ of party political films. This blanket prohibition extends beyond the Internet to all forms of film,” he said.
“As a matter of principle, this prohibition is unhealthy for both voters and politicians. Voters should be given maximum exposure to their political figures, to best enable us to make the most informed decisions at the ballot box. Politicians, in turn, will benefit from having an additional medium to communicate their message to the electorate.”
He added that unenforceable laws diminish the respectability of the legal framework, and should not be on the books.
In her reply in the Straits Times on 2 July, the director for MICA’s corporate communications, Ms K Bhavani, repeated what she had said in an email reply to the group of bloggers calling for the deregulation of the Internet:
The Government recognises that the Internet and new media technology have evolved since we introduced our light-touch approach in 1996. To keep up with the new media landscape, we have been reviewing our light-touch approach and are considering how we could take a lighter-touch approach. We appointed the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) in April last year to study the new media and how best to refine our regulatory framework.
We will consider all views and feedback in our review.
Read also:
Press freedom and freedom on expression (Straits Times).
Think critically in a digital age: Vivian (Straits Times).
——————
lighter touch? are you kidding me? no one BUT the individual has control over the internet. and we are ultimately responsibly for the choices we make.
I agree with Choo that political films will educate the masses.
Haven’t our govt complain that youths are being apathetic nowadays? And we wonder why so? Well, perhaps this can be a reason for MICA to think about. If the govt is so keen to engage youths, maybe they should consider films as one of the mediums seriously, rather than talk only.
I understand that the accountablilty might be an issue here. Or the govt is afraid that they might be “misrepresented” by the films. But as long as the producers of the films be accountable to their own productions, I think lifting the ban will benefit the public much more then having the ban. the public should have the right to know more and the access to know more.
Anyone noticed that Ms K Bhavani is now Director, Corporate Communications for Mica, since the Mr Brown brush with her on Today’s column? She was Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts back then.
I don’t see a lighter touch from her in that incident, least to say the “light-touch approach in 1996″. The only change I see since 1996 is our multi-million dollar ministers pay…
In digesting the excerpt of the articles attached, one cannot stop to ponder why the top leaders still hold their preconceived believe that the common citizenry is inept or implying that citizenry is incapable of differentiating the intended message or view of any publications through the so called new medium “Internet”.
Evidence is quite apparent with this quote extracted from the attached article when addressing the 2,000 students:
“’In the midst of such exponential growth of information, determining what is true or false is going to be extremely difficult…I have no easy answer except to ask you to be sceptical, and to think and be careful.’”
Why can’t the advice expressed to the student audience be on a positive note such as “to ask you to be objective…” rather than “to ask you to be ‘sceptical’…”. There is a subtle difference between the choices of the two adjectives. ‘Skeptical’ has a negative connotation setting a pre-conception implying that information obtained via this “Internet” medium is harmful or fabricated truth. A reflective similarity to proclaiming a criminal suspect “you are guilty until proven innocent”.
Ironically, besides the above preconceived notion, the attempt to indoctrinate on young minds with the fear factor is indeed deeply rooted with such quote:
“’Because you have an interconnected world, people with far-out ideas, or even wrong ideas, will be able to find someone who also believes the sun revolves around the earth and reinforce those beliefs.
Hence, diversity of views did not always end up in a ‘fundamental truth’. In fact, new media allows wrong ideas to be reinforced, he said.’”
This is far from encouraging the young to establish independent thinking through their learning process.
You can’t help but feel dismay that independent thinking is indeed not encourage in our nation. On the contrary, fostering dependencies is still very much alive and casually reinforced. One might argue and read it in a different perspective that the expressed statements are a kind reminder and exude a caring characteristic of a concerned leader. Well, this is a perfect illustration of there are always two sides to a coin in the name of freedom of expression as we as thinking humans always have differing views and values. This is the very essence of human nature.
In my humble opinion, for its citizenry to develop maturity thinking and resulting in achieving the ultimate goal of gracious, considerate and caring intellects that are for the betterment of its society, one needed to establish an objective view at young age of all things presented and it is indeed parts and parcels of growing up process and experience to be acquired to enable oneself the opportunity to differentiate or identify what’s factual and what’s fabrication.
Without a single doubt, today we are indeed living in an interconnected world, without a doubt there will be people with far-out ideas, or even wrong ideas and what not. However, to imply that the diversity of views did not always end up in a “fundamental truth’ is somewhat an over sweeping statement. The question is what and how “fundamental truth” is defined in its context?
missed a part of a statement.
“A reflective similarity to proclaiming a criminal suspect “you are guilty until proven innocent”.
Should be:
“A reflective similarity to proclaiming a criminal suspect “you are guilty until proven innocent” instead of “you are innocent until proven guilty”.
My apology for the small correction.
“’In the midst of such exponential growth of information, determining what is true or false is going to be extremely difficult…I have no easy answer except to ask you to be sceptical, and to think and be careful.’”
“’Because you have an interconnected world, people with far-out ideas, or even wrong ideas, will be able to find someone who also believes the sun revolves around the earth and reinforce those beliefs.
Hence, diversity of views did not always end up in a ‘fundamental truth’. In fact, new media allows wrong ideas to be reinforced, he said.’”
Exactly. So we also need to be mindful and careful and sceptical of evil powerful arrogant errant governments purveying lies as truth and deceit as wisdom. Diversity means allowing and tolerance for a contrarian view, checks and balances that will prevent the monopoly of opinion and bias as the only idea/truth/way forward. Diversity will not always as Vivian Balakrishnan claimed, result in radical violent ideas. If there had been no SPH to stand up to constant threats of libel suit by TT Durai, today the dirty secrets of NKF will still be covered up. What if there are also skeletons in the PAP govt’s closet? Who except an equally powerful Opposition can challenge it to open up? As things are, the govt already faces so much demands to be accountable and transparent.
The MICA’s response is laughable. What lighter touch when there never was a light touch? Just a play on words…semantics….semantics..sigh.
Tsk, Tsk like two flee bag dogs arguing about who owns more ticks. Internet is a free place. It should be declared a no go zone for EVERYONE. NO EXCEPTIONS SHOULD BE MADE Doesn’t even matter how smart, clever or good intentioned they are. NO GO. Only incredibly stupid people go around busying themselves with things they dont fully understand, but who will pick up the pieces when it blows up?