Friday, January 9, 2009 17:43
Govt accepts 17 of AIMs’s 26 recommendations
In Gerald Giam • 1,292 views • 24 Comments
Gerald Giam / Senior Writer
The Singapore Government this morning responded to the recommendations submitted by the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). It spelled out in its 18-page paper the reasons for accepting 17 of the 26 recommendations made by AIMS, and for rejecting the rest.
Summary of responses
The Government has agreed to rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes, like closing the feedback loop and replying to online letters in mainstream media websites. However it has declined to engage directly with bloggers on their turf, preferring to use its own portals like REACH (the Government feedback unit).
It has also declined to give more space for civil servants to voice their opinions.
On the Films Act, the Government has said it will liberalise it to allow political films which are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture”. The Government will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive” political films. An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.
The Government will retain Section 35, which gives the Minister the discretion to ban any film, and has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to spell out his reasons for doing so.
On the protection of minors, the Government has agreed to lift the symbolic ban on 100 websites only after a coordinating agency is satisfied that its programmes to protect children are working effectively.
However it has declined to pay for Internet filtering services for parents, except for certain low-income families.
Finally, the law will be changed to confer limited immunity from defamation actions on websites that host content.
COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS
E-Engagement
Rethink some of its current citizen engagement processes
The Government has said that it will explore measures on how to formally recognise well thought-out suggestions and feedback submitted to it every year, to encourage more Singaporeans to come forward and be engaged.
This is an encouraging move. I’m sure there are many Singaporeans who, like me, have given up sending feedback to REACH (the Government feedback portal), because it all seems to go into a “black hole”, to be read only by junior civil servants. Although I don’t expect the Government to accept every suggestion, well-intentioned and considered views should not simply be filed away. They should at least be published and recognised so that other policymakers and stakeholders can read them and consider them for future implementation.
Engage voices outside of current Government platforms
The Government said that “it is not practical or feasible to respond to all blogs or forum postings”. No one is expecting the Government to respond to all blogs. But this should not prevent them from responding to some blogs, particularly those of serious socio-political bloggers who make cogent and rational suggestions in their posts.
It may be true that “not all bloggers welcomed (sic) the Government’s voice on their private blogs”, but there are some that do welcome a response.
I sense that the Government’s fear is that responding to a blog that is critical of the Government will lend the blog credibility, when it is more interested in discrediting opposing voices. Another fear is that a response will generate even more opposing views, which the Government may not have a response to. This may make the Government look bad.
I am glad to hear that the Government has decided to reply to online letters carried in the online letter forums of the local mainstream media. This should have been done all this while. There is no reason to believe that online letters are any less worthy of a response, since they too have been carefully selected for publication by the newspaper forum editors.
Giving more space for civil servants to voice opinions
The Government’s response to AIMS on this was a flat “no”. However, I feel the Government should consider allowing civil servants to comment publicly on policy matters outside the purview of their own ministry. For example, there is no conflict of interest for a MINDEF officer to comment on social welfare issues (which comes under the purview of MCYS).
Online Political Content
Certain party political films will be allowed, and during election period
It is a step forward for some party political films to be allowed, as opposed to the ridiculous blanket ban currently. Films that are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture” will be allowed under the amended Films Act. The Government has said that it will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive party political films which would do harm to rational and objective political debate”.
But who is to judge what is factual and objective, or a dramatisation, a distortion, sensationalistic or emotive? These are very subjective judgment calls, which I doubt even the Independent Advisory Panel would be able to make fairly.
It would be much better to treat political films no different than normal commercials seen on TV. Companies who produce commercials which mislead consumers can be fined. But you don’t ban all TV commercials on the pretext that a few commercials may be false and misleading.
I am disappointed that the Government has taken this approach. I believe the real rationale behind it is that the Government wants to pre-empt the making of any films which may swing an election against them. This is not just self-interested, but kiasu (afraid to lose).
My stand is that Section 33 of the Films Act should be repealed completely. False and misleading films can be prosecuted under advertising or defamation laws. Citizens should be trusted to judge the rest, whether they want to believe them or reject them.
Section 35 of the Films Act
The Government has agreed with AIMS recommendation to retain Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film). But it has rejected AIMS recommendation for the Minister to be required to provide reasons for the ban.
This means Section 35 remains as an omnibus law which gives the Minister almost absolute discretion in banning a film. This renders any liberalisation of Section 33 (party political films) almost meaningless.
I have noted that the Government has stated that “films that may be banned under Section 35 will not be party political films”. But since the Minister can simply ban films without giving any reasons, this power can be used to ban films that even the Independent Advisory Panel has approved.
It should be noted that Martyn See’s “Zahari’s 17 Years” was a political film but it got banned under Section 35. Precedent already contradicts the Government’s claims.
Extend positive list for Internet Election Advertising
Political parties will now be allowed to use podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and other new media tools for Internet election advertising. This is a positive move. The onus is now on political parties to make full use of the increased space they have to communicate with the electorate to help them to make a more informed decision at the polls.
Conclusion
Overall, I feel that the Government’s moves are a positive step forward in engaging citizens and liberalising the political atmosphere. However they are not nearly what is expected of a country at such an advanced stage of its economic development.
Click here to visit AIMs’ blog and for a copy of the Government’s response in full.
———
Related posts:
24 Comments
Rain
Andrew Loh
To say I am disappointed may not be quite right. After all, I didn’t expect the govt to accept all of AIMS’s recommendations. But what is sad is that they’re just making cosmetic changes to the Films Act – if there’re any changes at all.
Bottom line is this:
1. The Minister still has final say over whether a film should be banned.
2. The Minister does not have to give any reasons for banning any films.
It’s status quo packaged as an opening up.
Rain
To clarify my disappointment: I did not expect the Government to accept all of AIMS’s recommendations. But I was looking forward to their justification for letting the Minister ban films without having to provide any reason. Instead, they conveniently glossed over this key issue in their response.
This was the paragraph:
“12 AIMS has also recommended that the independent advisory panel for party political films advises the Minister before a film is banned under section 35 and that the section be amended to require the Minister to give reasons for the ban. Films that may be banned under section 35 will not be party political films. Hence, there is no need to consult the advisory panel which the Government will set up for the sole purpose of determining party political films.”
Note also their completely unsatisfactory reason for not allowing the panel to advise the Minister on the banning of films under s. 35. The reason given is that the panel is set up “for the sole purpose of determining party political films”. This obviously begs the question: Why not enlarge the function of the panel so that it also assesses whether a film should be banned under s. 35?
Non-answers like this only serve to insult our intelligence.
Komnenos
They might as well say something like this
“You guys can do whatever you want but I still have the final say” *While holding onto section 35 trump card*
So what’s the diff from the current situation?
suhaw
Discretionary powers are not unique to the Films Act. They are found in many areas of law and are necessary so that laws do not become overly prescriptive of every minute detail, as well as to allow regulators the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
While certainty of law is important, we have also to acknowledge that the New Media landscape is continually changing and the law cannot be expected to anticipate the many forms that New Media can possbily evolve into. There will undoubtedly be issues that the legislators do not foresee at this point in time such that explicit and rigid legislations passed today will not be appropriate to the developing situation. Discretion will allow law enforcers to adapt and apply the just remedy.
Do remember that discretion can work both ways: While it can result in a harsher penalty for the guilty party, it can also mean a reprieve for the genuinely innocent.
The individuals and office-holders bestowed with discretionary powers will undoubtedly be mindful of the need to exercise such discretion with care and due diligence and not to invoke them arbitrarily or wantonly. Any use of discretionary powers would be the exception rather than the rule as new laws can and should be introduced to deal with issues once they are known. Just think of how few times Section 35 of the Films Act had been invoked versus the huge number of films that have been made.
Furthermore, the Minister – as a politician – would be acutely aware that any use of discretionary powers would subject him/her to intense public scrutiny and accountability come the next general elections. Any apparent use of discretionary powers would exact a heavy political price at the polling booth.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the Minister should publish the reasons behind any use of discretionary powers, for transparency reasons. But it would be unwise to repeal the Section as it would then deprive the Minister of a means to deal with unforeseen exigencies that may arise.
Gilbert Goh
For me, I am midly pleased that the govt has moved in the right step to accept some of AIMS’ proposals.
I have spoken to some here that I am starting an anti cyber bully site with the aim to protect minors up to age 17 (Sec 4).
Currently, there is little safeguard and support for those school going students who may spent many hours on the internet and this may subject themselves to online bullying tactics.
In Australia, there are national websites set up to educate and support school going children who are being targetted for online bullying.
In serious cases, children being bullied online may grow depressed or even harm themselves.
ST has done an article on my proposal and if all things go well, the article may appear next week.
I may then write to AIMS to get support and assistance to start this site.
Few aims of the site:
1. To provide educational/online counselling support to children being bullied online
2. To give talks in schools to children and teachers on protection against cyber bullying.
3. To start a national campaign to wage an offensive against cyber bullies.
4. To provide talks to parents who may be lost to the online cyber bullying tactics.
Thanks all.
Ah Chong
Quote :
4) Komnenos on January 9th, 2009 10.24 pm
They might as well say something like this
“You guys can do whatever you want but I still have the final say” *While holding onto section 35 trump card*
end of quote
Would be interesting to hear Gerald comment on the above.
cheers.
anonymouser
You know Gerald one thing about blogosphere is its funny and diverse place occupied by so many different communities. Its so big and varied. It defies definition. Take this for instance. If youre not happy with what the gahmen has decided. Dont be surprised as I said, if in another corner of the net, like the spacemen bros, theyre jumping in joy. To be honest with you all, I dont know why theyre so happy, could be anything, but I suspect, one big part is its a endorsement of the status quo ante and even tacit acceptance of the two system, one country solution they may have proposed.
Look at the bring side, at least someone is happy even if we arent.
Daniel
“It has also declined to give more space for civil servants to voice their opinions.”
Afraid of Whistleblower ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Anyone who familar with how the government works will know the extent of rot already happen.
“On the Films Act, the Government has said it will liberalise it to allow political films which are “factual and objective, and do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture”. The Government will continue to disallow “dramatised, sensationalistic and emotive” political films. An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.”
Haha, as the post has mentioned , who determine what is factual and what is truth ? Isn’t the kangaroo represents the truth, law and justice ? So who kidding who ? How is it that mis-selling and mis-representation from government video be even allowed then and they are not even subjected to their own policy and law ?
“An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.”
How convenient, and how noble ! How can someone call independence when a retired judge, aka PAP judge, who just want to have peaceful , troubleless happy luxury life dare to defy and distress the emperor and his henchmen ? How is it that someone which still get pay after retirement by the coffers using taxmoney or still want flavour of government still able to rule impartially of video that expose the side of dynasty rulers ?
“On the protection of minors, the Government has agreed to lift the symbolic ban on 100 websites only after a coordinating agency is satisfied that its programmes to protect children are working effectively.”
Please lah ! How many of the people actually interested in these 100 sites when there are so much substitutes ? Is that a noble cause ? The site is banned, but isn’t proxy able to circumvent those limitation ? So is the gov simply act benevolent when in fact they are just helpless to ban those ? Don’t the children as stupid as children are more intelligent and sophisticated nowsaday.
Look like the most important things are not resolved which as good as not having AIMS , and only trival thing which gov has little control anyway are passed.
What can I say ? Once kangaroo always a kangaroo…
Daniel
One can only accept the proposal if the government is honest and credible. HOw can someone even accept such proposal if the leaders who characters are in doubt still the one determine what’s good for us ? And let’s not forget, the banning of video could be done entirely behind the scene, and without reason. Retired Judge ? You mean he so free to monitor and approve the video ? If he so free , why not he helping in minibomb case ?
patriot
CYBERSPACE BELONGS TO EVERYBODY.
patriot
kingrant
Why fight with garmen over this? Youtube is Free. Just post yr videos and films online. Cyberspace has more bang for no buck. Or launch movies in JB lah. These MIW are just whitewashing..they will never give way. They are control freaks!
tiredsingaporean
11) kingrant on January 10th, 2009 2.01 am
Yes kingrant, not only youtube, there are so many other free tubes everywhere on the net these days, all you have to do is just upload whatever you want and send the links to all free sg classified sites, where I noticed traffic are very high these days, becos its FREE! and anything that is free, you know singaporeans will go for it for sure.
It is a step forward, I am just disappointed (as usual) with the refusal to act transparently. Not all reasons will satisfy everyone, but it gives insight into the minister’s views and he can explain his judgement call. Ultimately, not all actions are 100% right or wrong, there are always trade-offs to be made.
The Govt has spoken… at Vic.SG says:
[...] recommendations, they can be found at the SG Press Centre. The Online Citizens have also issued a response on the decision made by the [...]
Hahaha
>> An independent advisory panel, headed by a retired judge, will decide the fate of all party political films.
One question: Is a retired judge a recipient of the civil servants pension scheme? If so, the next question is then, how independent can such a person be?
loh
Our govt seems to have struck the right balance between regulation and freedom. The real question is whether this move will mean they will cont to open up, stay the same or even move backwards.
It would be fantastic, if we had Singaporedaddy to share with us all what he and his friends think about this new and exciting development.
g
“if we had Singaporedaddy to share with us all what he and his friends think about this new and exciting development.”
That will be useful. Only one think I dont understand is why limit civil servants from blogging? Tell me wasnt that one of the great suggestions proposed by singdad and his motley crew?
haha
It’s quite flippant to suggest that PAP may all of a sudden have the right to represent the netizens of this nation. Who elected them to represent us? Certainly not me. I was never, ever informed that a bunch of self-elected blogger reps took it upon themselves to push for liberty without consulting bloggers like me.
While as a Libertarian, I certainly support initiatives like this, I’m extremely leery of the notion that the PAP or Gahmen may suddenly take it upon themselves to represent us, or in fact, me. I don’t know them. I don’t know them as much as I know the community in the online citizen, Singapore Daily or even Tomorrow.sg, because it’s always a walkover in when yahoo took over netscape anyway. People like me don’t matter to the webmaster as long as he remains to wriggle freely on his seat as long as he desires to.
It’s quite laughable to me that PAP and the Gahmen or which ever, for all their inter-blogging drama that somehow manages to spill onto the mainstream media (probably because of the lack of anything to report of at the first place) can think that they can take it upon themselves to represent me.
An union of sorts that canvasses for my endorsement to push for liberty for me would be nice. Please don’t repeat Singapore-styled politics and appoint yourselves to represent me without consulting me first. Democracy doesn’t work that way.
Keep the Internet Free from Our Govt Please
haha
“20) loh on January 10th, 2009 4.26 pm Our govt seems to have struck the right balance between regulation and freedom. The real question is whether this move will mean they will cont to open up, stay the same or even move backwards.
It would be fantastic, if we had Singaporedaddy to share with us all what he and his friends think about this new and exciting development.”
How long a wait r we talking here. Anyone know or not?
tehsi
It fair to say, it will be a very long wait haha. As for all these. I dont know what to make of it. All I know is when something is paraphrased in the context of protecting children, then it can be used to justify anything and everything under the sun.
I would personally like to see some limits and a clear definition of what protection – bullying – and well being actually means. Otherwise there is a danger well meaning info slips down the road of open indoctrination and the slightest infraction can even be used to justify a clamp down.
gemami
5) suhaw : They (Films Act) are found in many areas of law and are necessary so that laws do not become overly prescriptive of every minute detail, as well as to allow regulators the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
Who drew up the legal restrictions? Whom does it protect; Singapore, Singaporeans or the ruling political party? Who are the regulators? What is ‘flexibility?”. Does ‘to adapt to changing circumstances‘ means to protect a particular interest, whose interest?
suhaw : … we have also to acknowledge that the New Media landscape is continually changing and the law cannot be expected to anticipate the many forms that New Media can possibly evolve into.
It is ever-changing, and it is a fact, I agree. Just like our modern day electronic gadgets, can we have legal legislations to prevent and restrict progress? We can’t. What more when we are talking about the intellectual realms of our human thinking. Can we restrict them and forced them into a cast-mould?
suhaw : … Discretion will allow law enforcers to adapt and apply the just remedy.
What is “just remedy“?. ‘Just’ by whose standard? We all know about the unjust and un-level political playing field here in Singapore. Are you saying the PAP govt is making it just for its opponents? It must be the joke of the century.
suhaw : The individuals and office-holders bestowed with discretionary powers will undoubtedly be mindful of the need to exercise such discretion with care and due diligence and not to invoke them arbitrarily or wantonly.
Singapore’s political interpretations have always been wanton, from the top tier of the elites to all its proxies like the court of law and the MSM. Since when have our office-holders held mindful discretions, care and diligence when it comes under scrutiny?
suhaw : Any use of discretionary powers would be the exception rather than the rule as new laws can and should be introduced to deal with issues once they are known.
And who is to stop or prevent the abuse of ‘discretionary powers?’. What are the ‘issues’ you are implying if they are none other than issues with the PAP’s opponents, by individual characters, political parties or their affiliations, too?
suhaw : Furthermore, the Minister – as a politician – would be acutely aware that any use of discretionary powers would subject him/her to intense public scrutiny and accountability come the next general elections. Any apparent use of discretionary powers would exact a heavy political price at the polling booth.
Suhaw, either you think the PAP is one dumb-ass party or you think we are the dumb-asses. Tell me, would the PAP be so stupid to haul upon its shoulders anything that does not work for them? Even if the Minister is called to make an unpopular, or uncalled for, decision, take this internet regulation thing as an example; it will make sure that all it proxies are roped in to paint any black picture as white as they possibly can. Since when has this govt been conscious of public scrutiny and accountability, when it can get away with murder, in my opinion?
suhaw : …the Minister should publish the reasons behind any use of discretionary powers, for transparency reasons.
Now what are you saying? What is the use of publishing such reasons when they can be amended from time to time as situations warrant, which you have also suggested?
suhaw : But it would be unwise to repeal the Section as it would then deprive the Minister of a means to deal with unforeseen exigencies that may arise.
Again you harp on this thing called ‘ unforeseen exigencies’ as you did when you called them ‘issues’ and ‘flexibilities’. What are these, especially when it is up to the (PAP) Minister to decide what they are?
The best way to regulate internet discussions is “No Regulation”. Like what #11) Patriot has said so short and sweetly, and I repeat here: “Cyberspace belongs to everybody“.
I also agree with #19) haha, and I am also flipped, that the PAP has suddenly found a need to represent netizens without so much as an invite to help shape the discussions on internet regulation. Where is the consultation?
No place for political violence in Singapore : The Online Citizen - a community of singaporeans
[...] Government has already made limited concessions to freedom of speech online. If we want the political freedom of adults, don’t give the Government excuses to give us the [...]
observer
http://singaporecitizen.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/one-step-forward-another-step-back/
Came across this.
After reading the Government’s response, it is interesting to note that the Government took care to explain the rationale for most of its decisions on AIMS’s recommendations, but failed to justify its rejection of the recommendation that the Minister should provide reasons for banning any film under s. 35 of the Films Act.
This implies that the Government has NO convincing reason to reject this particular recommendation, and simply wishes to allow the Minister to ban whichever film he likes without having to justify his decision and be held accountable in the public court of reason.
Very very disappointing indeed.