Came across this.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

patriot

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…

Look at the bring side, at least someone is happy even if we arent.

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.

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.

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.