Breaking News: CEO of BHP Biliton will succeed Ho Ching as CEO on Oct 1. He will be appointed CEO-designate on Mar 1.
By Choo Zheng Xi/Editor-in-Chief
THERE IS some truth in Senior Minister of State for Information, Communication and the Arts RADM Lui’s criticism of the blogosphere. Some of the comments and reactions in wake of Member of Parliament (MP) Seng Han Thong’s burning went far beyond the pale.
No political fault should ever warrant physical violence in a respectable democracy, and comments claiming Mr Seng got his just deserts do not belong in civilized political discourse.
Unfortunately, the “self-regulation” RADM Lui identifies as a possible solution is far off the mark, and the patronizing tone PAP MPs take towards the blogosphere is also unlikely to solve the problem of extreme comments on the blogosphere.
It is important to find middle ground in this increasingly polarized dynamic, but the government needs to correct two important fundamental misunderstandings of the blogosphere before dialogue can move forward.
Regulation unrealistic
The first misunderstanding is RADM’s Lui’s expectation of ‘self-regulation’ of the blogosphere. Bloggers are in no position to assert coercive power over one another.
As the government convened Advisory Committee on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) pointed out several times in its proposals to relax online regulation, one of the primary motivations for liberalization was practical: it is almost impossible for the government to regulate content online.Thus, RADM Lui’s disappointment in the internet community’s ability to ‘self-regulate’ and ‘enforce the norms of acceptable online behavior’ is misplaced: how can bloggers succeed in policing one another where even the government cannot?
As TOC highlighted in our participation in the Blogger’s 13 deregulation proposal, we believe ‘community moderation’ is a more realistic aim.
Moderation, as distinct from regulation, involves no coercive power in the regulatory sense. Instead, it is reliant on the internet community evolving norms on the limits of good taste and behavior, the aggregate of these expressed through a ‘collective disapproval’ mechanism which needs to be further fleshed out. It will have no coercive powers beyond that of moral suasion.
While contrarian, we at TOC attempt to keep discourse within established codes of acceptability. We do no censor unsavory comments that Mr Seng deserved what he got, unless they border on incitement to violence. However, our Senior Writer Koh Jie Kai wrote an article entitled “No Place For Political Violence in Singapore”.
This is our contribution to moderating the tone of online discourse. For now, we can do no more.
TOC and objectivity
The second misunderstanding is RADM Lui’s call for ‘objectivity and balance in the content posted’.
Many bloggers express their personal opinions, and these are not meant to be journalistically conveyed. An individual expressing his dissatisfaction with public transport prices is unlikely to heed RADM Lui’s call to objectivity.
This call to ‘objectivity and balance’ might seem to be directed more towards websites like TOC that do regular commentaries and create news reports.
However, we make no apologies for our editorial slant. Our stories portray events from an alternative angle, a contrarian angle. We do not make a claim to complete objectivity.
The contrarian angle we have chosen is part conviction, part necessity.
Conviction because we believe that unquestioning acceptance of a single official national narrative weakens our democracy, and shortchanges Singapore. Singaporeans need a chance to forge a national narrative they can feel a sense of ownership over, and this ownership can only be achieved through their active participation in its creation.
Empowering Singaporeans is a twofold task: it means taking the national leadership off their pedestals by pointing out their shortcomings whenever apparent, and encouraging Singaporeans to get involved in shaping the way our political system works.
Necessary because the default position of the mainstream media is still tilted in government’s favor. Hence, the contrarian viewpoint is where the news value is. Public feedback to TOC has expressed appreciation for highlighting critical alternative opinions, as well as alternative news and events that would otherwise get little play in the mainstream media.
Fix the fundamentals, then the communication
On its part, the PAP needs to do some soul-searching to identify the source of online anger.
It is willfully ignorant for the PAP to underestimate the anger some Singaporeans feel at the perceived insensitivity of the political leadership, and arrogant to write it off as the ranting of a minority. The government response to Mas Selamat’s escape still rankles one year on, and Dr Teo Ho Pin’s reaction to the loss of Town Council funds was stingingly obtuse.
If insensitivity is the symptom, the root illness is the abuse of hegemony. Politically aware Singaporeans are all too familiar with the structural advantages the PAP has used to protect itself: the Group Representative Constituency scheme, laws on public assembly and expression, indirect control of the press, the redrawing of electoral boundaries, the suing of opposition figures.
Unless greater progress is made unraveling these obstacles that stunt public expression at the ballot box and the soapbox, the spillover on the freest platform in Singapore will continue to be rancorous.
Beyond that, communication is key.
In the dialogue with online media, instead of harping about destructive energies on the blogosphere, RADM Lui and his government need to begin engaging websites with critical mass by leaving comments at the end of articles or writing letters of clarification to these sites. While responses might border on the insulting, that is the nature of democratic dialogue.
The benefit to be reaped is a de-radicalization of the dialogue: attacks will be less harsh if genuine sincerity in listening to alternative views is shown by the government.
On our part, we agree with RADM Lui’s call for bloggers to establish norms of acceptable behavior, but disagree that anyone on the internet should ‘enforce’ these norms. The force of these standards must come from the moral legitimacy of community acceptance: they need to be evolved from consensus and not by fiat.
Prominent blogger Lucky Tan recently spoke out strongly against attempts to justify the burning of Mr Seng. Perhaps it is time for members of the blogging community to start following suit.
all these military-dumb scholars are communists who want citizens to obey their orders like NSFs.
regulate the internet?
try it and we shall see how stupid policies affect Singapore’s GDP when every country started treating Singapore with mistrust like North Korea.
given the response of the netizens, we should expect the downfall of the PAP in the next election.
It is a real joke that a close-minded person can be a MInister for Arts and Communications. This display of attitude is like a Nerd expecting people to say he’s cool when the world (except himself) knows he’s far from it.
Mr.Lee, I know you are coming to realisation of true sentiments and that’s why you are suggesting relaxation of rules. So, please, I’m begging you, educate your people and try your very best to pass them some wisdoms.
Haiz.
Recent commments and insensitive conduct on the part of MPs n civil servants points to something very serious, which is, political leadership. Who is in charge, pulling the strings, getting the political act together during such difficult times. Much as he is not in good books nowaday, MM was always ready to speak n take action during our early independence days. Someone who could be counted on then, to put out the the fire before it starts. I feel a vacuum now, ever since from the great escape of the limpling terrorist..
What are the impressions our leaders have imprinted in us?
Will be nice to know how Singaporeans feel, thus far arrogant and boastful are the the most common descriptions.
patriot
This whole discussion is somewhat weird,
Blogs thrive on the subjective and the passionate. If they were not extreme…no one will read them…then why blog?
I remember attending a talk by a well known internet guru, I think it was Steven Pierce, he said about blogs, “you either kick ass, or you kiss ass”
Twitter a micro-blog is probably more frightening…its thrives on what our minister mentor often accused Jeyaretnam of “innuendos” The people who are effective in this can spin powerful mental suggestion with their 140 words to stir people to action..
So there is a whole lot of activity, science and art developing of how people, organizations, and governments monitor what been said about them or about issues….and how they react to counter and manage these “statements”
Its the new PR activity that individuals and organization have inevitably got to manage in the new media world. You can actually deploy twitter as one of your monitors…get a bigger crook to catch a smaller one!.
As Singaporeans, pragmatic as we are…we often react by saying, “what a waste of time” …”just get rid of it..or regulate it”
Well …I don’t know if that line of thinking will work in this case.
Blogging in the larger Blogsphere have created new paradigms in the management of communication…which have led to new types of business activities, new jobs….and so on.
Change for the better? I don’t know….but its change that I see as inevitable….and as sooner we are able to attain the maturity of the larger blogsphere, the better equipped we will be to cope with New World Media.
This person Lui must first earn the respect of the people, must remenber that he is no longer in uniform
Being a MP and a Senior Minister of GRC not the choice the majority but nevertheless place there to serve the people should not dictate what the people can or cannot do
Respect must be earned not force upon.
If there are discontent among the people, it is in the interest of the ruling party to find out the reasons behind all this unhappiness.
Quite frankly, the blogosphere is becoming the Singaporean’s only real avenue of expression of dissatisfaction with the government especially since that other more traditional avenue – the polling booth – has been rendered quite useless by the GRC system, not to mention the inevitable slew of lawsuits after each election.
As one of Singapore’s newly-poor sandwich class, I see the the anger and lack of sympathy over the SHT incident as an expression of discontent at anyone who represents the ruling class. I wonder why our super-intelligent, best-in-the-world, most-expensive-in-the-world government can’t see as far as their noses and acknowledge the anger for what it is – not directed at SHT personally but at their entire cohort. It is an expression of the helplessness of ordinary Singaporeans to self-determine.
I think he should just stick his head in the sand so that he sees no evil, hears no evil and makes no evil comments, then everybody is happy!
Why did MM see him for five times?
Is it to find out what is wrong on the ground. Whether he had angered and provoked the people on the ground.
MM must feel that he has to go all out to patch up the ground and restore it so that is friendly and supportive of pap.
The ground is beyond repair.
Gone are the days when people will listen and obey MM and the other big names of pap.
People will wonder what had driven this man, Ong to do the burning deed and be prepared to face the all the punishment that will be targeted at him.
Then they will ask what has this MP and pap done to Mr Ong.
The answer for the Ah Seng, Ali and Maniam is that this man had been driven to the limit and he had reacted according to the basic human instinct. Fight back and killed or be killed.
Seng Han Thong’s 是被人性不和谐的人伤害，是‘为民请命中’的代罪羔羊。
We must realise that in countries where peaceful protests, as a form of collective expression of unhappiness and frustrations are allowed, people only burn effigies and not the person physically, e.g. the Shin Corp protests in Thailand.
The clamping down on peaceful protests too extremely and forcefully could be the contributing factor that turns individuals to physical violence as a form of protest. It is just like crimes of passion. At an instant of provocation, a screw simply went loose and uncontrollable rage took over, resulting in unimaginable consequences.
We know that most of us will not condoned such violence. But let us take a pause and look at the case of the Israelis vs the Palestinians recently. What have they been doing? They simply went berserk. If at the national level, people can collectively express their frustrations and unhappiness by using unimaginable violence, can we than be 100% sure that at the individual level such violence will not occur?
In the famous words of our beloved PM: “It has happened….what to do? Lets move on …”
Should we move on? I think not.
We can only move on after we have taken remedial action. And that remedial action is to open up more and allow people to hold peaceful protests to vent their frustrations and unhappiness. Because too much pent-up feelings kept too long would lead to a tsunamic explosion in the future. And that would be even more painful, horrible and unthinkable.
It is just like playing a guitar. If the strings are too loose, they won’t sound nice; but if the strings are too tight, they will simply burst.
Lui seems to be symptomatic of what I find distressing about our ruling party’s politicians, in that they seem to be ensconced within their comfortably – government – regulated and insulated sphere from within which they practice their version of so-called politics.
Simply outrageous is how Lui assumes all Singapreans would come out in support of SHT and roundly condemn Mr Ong for that violent act.
Although I am deeply sympathetic towards Mr Seng, the beauty of internet blogging is that a wide range of views and opinions can be expressed. and not all may be in support for the government of the day.
This to me is REAL politics, not what our ‘leaders’ so sneakily attempt to portray as requiring ‘self-regulation’, as with any democracy, freedom of expressing one’s opinion is a fundamental right, and Lui’s self-serving attempts at using his moralistic stance in condemning those who do just bristles of his contempt of democracy in Singapore!
rightly so i guess, since the version of democracy we get is what our ‘leaders’ want us to follow, and this is the latest govt attempt at shaping how we should view things…
democracy in Singapore! simply amazing…
“To those (leaders around the globe) who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” – President Barrack Obama.
How come there are only 14 comments when actually there are 63 comments?
Has it occurred to anyone that Ah Lui may simply be subtly highlighting the real problem of people’s unhappiness. Ever since he mentioned the “10 things MP Seng should be thankful for”, I bet many MSM readers have googled it and some have found what the real problem is.
Or perhaps pur civil servants like Ah Lui are really that dumb?
I call upon Adm Liu and the relevant ministries to take a look at some of the shitty shows on our Television that we are paying $110 a year for. I do not want these shows that corrupt our young leading to our teenage girls indulging in immoral behaviour before they are even 16. Can they send their people to stop those shows as what the experts have pointed out? And these experts are not even paid top dollars yet they know where the problem is. So please, do the job that you are paid to do and clean up those shows before our country goes to the dogs.
I asked a few of my kopitiam regular buddies about SHIT.
They told me if they had more balls, they would do it too.
Unfortunately, they had kids who had families. ” I die never mind, but u know PAP lah, they will make life difficult for my children and grandchildren…”
Mr Lui should visit more kopitiams to regulate this sort of sentiments.
The Seng Han Thong’s case is indeed unfortunate, but this is an one-off incident that involves a man who is mentally not very sound. Adm Lui should read it in a bigger context, that Seng is part of PAP and public unhappiness towards the PAP is growing. If people like Adm Lui continues to read the grassroot wrongly then very sadly, the PAP is going to lose more ground. By all means, censor the internet, and the PAP is going to lose even much more.
Very sad indeed, instead of listening to the ground and lead, they want to do things their way, things are changing very very fast, support for the PAP is not eternal, for their own survival they better listen hard.
For instance, stop making statements like making a foreign roadsweeper in
Singapore sound like a FOREIGN TALENT. We need to pay Ministers high pay because they got higher pay outside previously, well, not all Ministers were high paying officials before they went into politics, only a few. People are no longer as gullible as before.
Stop pushing people to accept things and policys. People do not like to be cornered or walled in.
How dare a homophobic person like Lui talk about objectivity?
Totally shameless.
He has NO HONOUR for failing to resign to take responsibility for the totally reckless collision of the RSS Courageous resulting in its total write off and the death of 4 SAF(NAVY) personnel while he was the Chief of the Singapore Navy.
There is no evidence to link this incidence to the on-line blog community. PAP is using this incidence to extend their control into the cyper space. I do not condone any violence against any person. Those in power should take note that there are profound dissatisfaction and anger in the general community. I do not have all the fact but reading many of theTOC blogs gave me an idea that many people are dissatisfy with many gahment policies. The public lack a voice and representation in Parliament to raise questions of interest to them. The public perception of MP is not exactly one of high esteem.There are many issues of interest to Sinkaporean e.g. FT/FW policy, granting large number of foreigners PR and citizenship status and the high cost of living. There may be no esay solution to the questions but if the public perception is that the gahment is actively addressing those issues, their views could be changed to one of more sympathetic to the gahment. I know the PAP is not in the habit to listen to the public, it is just too much to ask/expect. Their control of all the instrument of power is total and absolute.