Andrew Loh
Each time the issue of moderating the Internet surfaces, I have images of wild horses running round, trampling on and destroying all in its wake, in some mad rush fueled by some invisible and unknown fear that not doing so will jeopardize their lives.
It could very well be an apt analogy for the way the government feels towards the Internet – and the blogosphere, in particular. Whenever something new or unfamiliar appears, its first thought is: “How do WE control it?”
I was thus quite amused – and sad – when I read the Straits Times special feature on the topic in last Saturday’s edition. Titled, “Moderate so Govt can de-regulate”, it reflected views from various quarters, including academics, MPs and bloggers. They suggested various ways in which moderation could be implemented.
What is unfortunate is that none of them thought or felt that the Internet (blogosphere) should be left to evolve on its own.
The background to the Straits Times piece was the recent attack on MP Seng Han Thong and the subsequent “torrent of vitriol” on the Internet, which Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, had said was directed at MP Seng, instead of the person who had injured him.
As my friend, Melvin Tan, pointed out, virtually no blogger took or expressed pleasure at the attack on Mr Seng. Thus, we are kept wondering what or where the minister for Mica was referring to. And no one has thus far asked Mr Lui for the sources of the “nasty comments” about Mr Seng made on the Internet.
But back to moderation.
The Internet is a relatively young colt, not yet a full-fledge horse able to make big strides or run free. It barely can stand on its own, at the moment. It has just begun on a journey of discovery – wide-eyed and all. Yet, here we are contemplating, scheming and searching for ways and means to put a harness on it, to control it. To keep it within the bounds of an imaginary stable. Perhaps with barbed-wire fences around it too.
As with all things, the Internet will evolve. Bloggers will evolve and I believe also that Internauts will be able to distinguish between the rational and the mad.
The focus, instead, should be in the schools and the general public. Much can be done to inculcate a better and deeper sense of awareness of the pitfalls of the Internet. As for socio-political bloggers, one alternative is for the more well-read, “credible” blogs to allow space to highlight or carry links on its website of other “credible” bloggers. This way, over time, visitors know which are the more credible blogs. This is one of the ways “moderation” can be applied, and the best part is that the authorities do not have to be involved.
It is, however, something which will take time to take root and work. This is where I suspect the authorities have a problem. “Something needs to be done NOW!”, is what I feel they’re saying in panic.
I do hope that we can dispense with the usual top-down “either-you-do-it-or-I-will-do-it-for-you” mentality.
There is already a whole barnful of legislations to deal with troublemakers.
The Internet is clearly the only free space we have in S’pore, Hong Lim Park notwithstanding. Give it time to evolve on its own. Let the colt mature and have time – and space – to grow and discover.
Don’t snuff out its breath.
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Anyone who think he can control the internet is dreaming. Anyone who come forward to obstruct the natural way of the internet will be crushed. Like the Taoist Way, the internet is a force which no one should and could control. What will be will be.
Wait for web 2.0
I just feel that
restricting the web usage or causing people to feel worried using the internet
may not be good. Fear stiffles creativity (Again!! :( ). Internet can help businesses. We should embrace the internet and see how others are using it. The west is creative as people are more free to express.
juz my 2 centz.
I believe we can ‘self moderate’. Very seldom do we see senselessly hateful comments on the credible sites.
This is Web 2.0 after all.
No one has the right to regulate Internet. Internet is FREE OF CHARGE for all.
Bloggers must unite for our common destiny.
There’s no need for moderation. And any moderation is a waste of resources.
The government just have to make sure that people online knows that Singapore laws applies online as well. Once they get this idea through to people, they will regulate themselves.
There’s no need for moderation or regulation. The law is already adequate enough.
Internet is not Singapore. The govt should not even attempt to muffle our rights of voices, This is seen as symptoms of arrogant and denial. If there is true democracy and fair play in this country, netizens do not have to resort to anonymity to get their voices heard. If the govt is willing to listen and speak with the people, they should come out of their well guarded “WELL” to spar with netizens, on equal footing, in the open space. Unfortunately, the tamed& complacent ones are just too afraid to even lift their head outside the guarded well and to come forward with an open heart and mind to listen and speak without fearing their master. This is a matured world and not pap own created playground to tame their own kind with fairy tales and censorship.
I hope most of the ministers (if not all of them), can come forward to the public forum to voice and listen without fearing their master or resort to censorship. This is a matured world and
Bloggers who want a free reign and write under anonymity just have to moderate themselves. You have witnessed the deluge of inflammatory, defamatory and derogatory remarks targetted at those in authority and other netcitizens of opposing views. Which is the reason blogs like TOC started with no moderation have introduced a degree of control but not quite enough it appears. I am all for the growth of the new media platform and free speech but within the law. It is an
illusion that internet cannot be controlled. It can be if nations get together to manage it.. .. it may well be soon to prevent the next big world disaster.
Gov seems to have the utmost, absolute disbelief in human rights & free speech. I wonder why! Has this entity known as human rights deprived the gov members of childhood & given them sad, painful memories?
I don’t see the intense need to stifle free speech. An example, not talking about other religions does not equate to harmony. It’s simply locking yourselves into your little box & refusing to discover what’s outside the box, for fear of jumping outta the frying pan & into the fire.
Free speech is a simple thing that should come with the free, basic subscription of being a human-being in a democratic country. I wish gov could see past their own differences against free speech & look at the bigger picture, the country as a whole.
A country can never have positive, powerful, freely flowing energy if free speech & creativity is stifled & free thought is not encouraged & forbidden in certain areas, & can never be aired to fellow country mates.
Nobody can control the ‘voice’ of the Internet. Laws can be set in place, but stalwarts will always find some way to circumvent the system.
As humans, we like the concept of ‘freedom’.
The thing is that with someone wanting to ‘control’ this space, it shows a blatant disregarded to the unique, individual views of its users.
The world is a diverse place, and the Internet is a place we can share our ideas, some good, some bad.. but the minute you stamp it down, on the surface you’ll have some measure of peace, cookie-cutter mindsets.. but the undercurrents are dangerous. And before you know it, we’ll be meeting offline being discontent.. and what are you going to do next? enforce Martial Law?
it is unrealistic to enforce such strict laws on personal expression in a ‘democratic’ state.
If you want to help ‘regulate’.. be involved in what your citizens are saying, meet them where they are. it’s an uphill battle.. or are we saying that the very party we ‘voted’ for is not up to the challenge?
talking about regulating the internet,
can a person ask,
is it true that GIC no need to disclose its accounts under isa ?
can such a question even be asked?
if cannot, do reply to this comment and i will not ask anymore.
I believe the problem about Internet moderation or censorship is not about whether it is right or wrong, but about whether it is possible or not in the first place.
There is no way to systematically control what people say on the Internet without becoming a reclusive state like North Korea where only the privileged can access the Internet.
Even China, know for its Great China Firewall, has limited control over what people are saying on the Internet.
It can also be questionable whether there is a need for moderation in the first place – Singapore is a country with a highly-educated population. Many people are well capable of judging the quality of Internet content on their own.
Perhaps there are still lots of people out there who can be easily swayed by bloggers without credibility… but that still do not explain the need for moderation.
Perhaps the more important thing is to educate Singaporeans on how they should view comments on the Internet objectively and let people judge for themselves whether to believe in what they read – this provides a win-win solution for all – people are better educated to judge what they read, the Government need not worry about moderating the Internet, and people can say what they want at their own risk – risk of being criticized and rejected by rational readers.
Afterall, at the end of the day, making people afraid to voice their thoughts online does not solve the problem of dissenting views among the population – people still can have the freedom to form dissenting thoughts, and in my opinion that is more dangerous (e.g. like a timebomb waiting to explode when people can no longer tolerate the repression).
To conclude, I think Singaporeans today are more than ready for the Government to step back on moderation and control of media – there may be risks of political dissent and issues about protecting racial harmony to consider… but the persecution can be left to discerning Singaporeans to condemn people who make unfair or discriminatory comments online… there is no need for the Government to spend too much taxpayer money trying to figure out how to moderate Internet content, which in my opinion is a futile attempt unless they adopt policies like what is done in Communist states.
and then there is the issue of
1. where/what EXACTLY are the ob markers?
an imaginary example : ALL criticisms of religion will be persecuted.
2. Who determines or sets ob markers?
What guarantees fairness?
3. is beauty in the eyes of the beholder?
Sg’s survival depends on the world.
Lets follow the world norms and not be too regulatory.
of course, i don mean its as bad as n.kor or irac.
May I also add that any attempt at moderation may be actually revealing the leaders’ lack of confidence in the effectiveness of government policies.
Consider an example – by citing the risk of racial disharmony as a reason for controlling Internet content, can that be equivalent to a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of our National Education, Total Defence and various racial harmony policies and education programs in promoting racial harmony? Or could it be that while racial harmony is being promoted on the one hand, some policies implemented by the Government actually contributes to reducing harmony?
Disclaimer – I am just providing some examples and questions to think about, not necesarily implying that there are problems. Up to readers to think about it and form their own conclusions, which ought to be the stance taken by the Government.
We know what they are up to. Not that politics will hurt someone physically or emotionally. But that knowledge is a threat..
We know there are bloggers who write about:
1) Racial stuff (Sexy Frangrant Prince)
2) Elitism (Wee Shu Min)
3) Politically Motivated Content (Gopalan Nair, Mr Brown, Mr Wang, Lucky Tan, Molly Meek, Tan Kin Lian, Wayang Party Club, and the bunch of yahoos who rode on the burn MP bandwagon)
Bloggers 1) and 2) are igonorant brats who cause hurt to people’s feelings.
Bloggers 3) on the other hand is special, they probe everything you’ve ever wanted to know, discover, understand and hopefully to be cherished by. They get alot of press coverage, plus sometimes get their articles “borrowed” without permission.
On top of that, if they write to the press, they may get replies from Chua Mui Hong or the other fat sister ..i’m guessing she’s fat, maybe both are fat too, got alot of time to write propaganda and eat only.
So don’t come and bs people with the sedition act lah.
Well, as far as I’m concern, bloggers who write about POLITICAL content, are writing it for THE PEOPLE. They are the unsung heros & heroines of the internet. And they WILL prevail no matter how much you try to shut them up.
Just my thoughts. :)
there are others countries blocking websites from accesing into their own countries.eg,china, they block off website which are ”harmful” to them… yet i did not found sg govt doing that…..
I playing this political/economy game
http://www.erepublik.com
it is quite good. it only need to spend 5 mins daily and after a few weeks u will found this game interesting.
there are eSingapore in the game. it has issues like min wage and how to make use of basic political skills.
* this did not come easy and u need to play for some time. Note that there are real citizen like me, so u must play and get more influences from other ppl 1st
I dont think the idea will fly, com moderation. As I remember it was one of the points mooted by the blogger 13 headed by YB and C.George once upon a time. As I remember it when they had an open forum which I went too. Only 15 people turned up. Thats a good ballpark of the level of interest. How many flags do you see flying the deregulate the net in our net. Again not many. Can try though, but expect massive resistance.
But if you can the main obstructors and troublemakers on your side. Then the chances are very good. And the whole idea may actually fly. They may I see it, it is the troublemakers themselves who may have an unusual sway over internet votership. Deal with them and anything can fly.
As it is, it looks like a very lame duck.
Self-policing: the most insidious form of power…
#18,
In this post-modern world, one cannot shoehorn bloggers into specific categories simply because they can choose to write on any issue.
Blogger A writes 5 times a month on socio-political or international affairs and gets labelled a socio-political blogger. And next month, he/she decides to write about things like the wonderful pizza at Red Dot Brewhouse and their refreshing alfalfa ale; the best orh luah in Geylang etc..
That’s how self-defeating categorisation is.
why is sg so like that? :P
I wonder in this day and age and after the so-called ‘liberalisation’,
could the system handle choking questions?
y/n ?
Sg_netizens are matured, constructive and value-adds.
but the internet offers us an opportunity to “simply let it out”…..
and who are we to judge whether this netizen is a negative element and should be barred….
so I guess the govt has yet to appreciate the whole spectrum of the internet and accept it for what it is…..
and yet to have trust in sg-netizens to “behave”….
I agree that trying to harness and control New Media is being too kiasu. Also bewildered by this talk that Net was cruel to Seng Han Thong. No such thing from what I can see.
Life can be cruel sometimes.
Should we ignore this reality and create an artifial reality?
for who?
I have visited a few blogsites after the Seng H.T. case. Not in this sphere – but some of the remarks made of MP Seng were over-cruel and unnecessary.
Some have caste gleeful aspersions at our presidency and judiciary.
It is one thing to criticise government policies. Every policy will ultimately have to defend itself but to defile our presidency and judiciary cannot, must not, must never be allowed. Will the world that we are so dependent upon for our survival invest in a small and seemingly unruly country that even mock at its presidency.
There are few well articulated and good articles in the blogsites I’ve been to. A lot of enjoiners especially are infantile and puerile. As such they pose no political or social threats as discerning citizens would not make a second visit on them. Lots of profanity-laced remarks.
But of those bloggers who contravene the law, defile our presidency and/or judiciary I feel it would be responsible of our authorities to rein-in such disrespectful citizens for corrective training. They are also defacing Singapore.
Leading and contemptuous articles are posted to inveigle feeble-minds to their cause whatever they may seem to be, tho I suspect to be mostly politically motivated. Authors of such articles should also be taken to task.
In the main, I feel Singapore is not ready and should not allow bloggers to operate with impunity and postings in blogsphere unfettered even if the authorities have to unleash the laws no matter how unpalatable this may be.
And, if the government is crippled by fear of losing popularity and cringe into inaction to rein in recalcitrant bloggers it will encourage them and we may be doomed.
Pragmatism may not always be the best solutions. The BIG-STICK won the early days for us. And I am concerned that the hard work of our founding generation is well-preserved for our future generations. The majority of Singaporeans, the most discerning of us know the score. There will always be detractors.
The future is in the hands of our new leaders and its also your responsibilty to protect the legacy of our founding fathers.
i am the reformed blogger
“And, if the government is crippled by fear of losing popularity and cringe into inaction to rein in recalcitrant bloggers it will encourage them and we may be doomed.”
A good government will not try to do this and will not be afraid to have a good system to give in to collective popularity as any collective force / intelligence of an educated & knowledgeable workforce will always reign supreme anytime than a mere few whose very hubris must be regularly checked by the this popular collective force.
In true open democracies, the MSMs are even more potent and damaging than our new media on the government. I don’t see the US government for eg, trying to rein in the people from their MSMs, let alone the netizens. Everyone must be allowed their say in the new media and if the postings sound too preposterous, it will be ignored or read with a pinch of salt.
The government should learn to treat the citizens as adults.
Jasper,
Wrong tactics for the wrong age. This is not the 1960s. Policymakers would do well to heed this reality.
…..If you really want to go wild on blogosphere better get advice from a lawyer who should be able to tell you where the OB markers are. But interesting to see the next phase of development when the authorities get invovled in the new media in a big way..
There is no strong need to regulate TOC, imho.
TOC is already regulating comments almost instantly after you post.
Just ask TOC how many comments they have deleted.
cheers.
Tio Man Long,
We have had a total of 46, 379 comments since TOC so far.
44, 521 comments have either been approved or displayed immediately upon posting.
1, 858 comments have been disallowed.
To see things in perspective:
1, 858 equals to about 74 comments every month which are disallowed. (Taking a figure of 25 months since TOC came online in Dec 1, 2006).
74 comments equals to 2.4 comments disallowed everyday (Taking a 30-day month).
Why take the trouble to disallow 2.4 comments a day then?
#38,
Because we don’t know it’s going to be 2.4 until we see it in hindsight.
Fair enough, and now that you have hindsight view, is it worth the trouble to continue doing so?
Have you sit up and think why people like to use the internet to express and comment on such things about Singapore. It is because the main media, i.e. the newspapers and media corp do not allow them the space to comment on certain things about Singapore where its citizens feel passionately about. All the news and comments by the main media is filtered and skewed.
observe the ‘bouquet’ section in newspaper.
makes people feel good.
i have a opinion about the news report by a ‘new local research paper’ , ST saturdy page A25.
the statistic :
Q: what should the gov do to lighten the financial burden of an ageing society?
Statistics shown: majority of 48.6% feels that Retirement Age should be raised.
I have questions :
1. who compiled this stats?
2. what happens if another person compiles his own stats? lets say me. If i do it, I feel that the stats would be different. to me, to lighten the financial burden for ageing society would be to have a strong and robust retirement plan planned decades ahead for the people. Why need to raise the retirement age when there is already a retirement plan for the people using CPF? Is there any weakness that requires people to change their retirement plan? Why ? singapore only has a tiny population, their retirement should not be a problem. Early planning should not require raising the retirement age, imho. Also, like to raise an awareness :
a. some people are told old people wants to work older past 60 for all sorts of reasons. I think this way of saying is not clear enough. People want to retire and stay active doing things they like like non-salary work like gardening, travelling, social work, arts, karaoke, creative activities, learn new skills and hobbies. 20 years is not long to learn or do all that a person wants to during retirement. what i mean is, I feel that old people do not want to work when old and they can and want to do things that still keep their minds alert and thinking BUT!!!!!! not to earn a living. I feel that some may be mistaken based on what they were told that old people wants to continue working to keep their minds active to prevent alzheimers etc. This can be a sweeping statement in 1 aspect as to keep one’s mind and soul active, it is not a must to continue earning a salary. It should be clearer by saying some old people who cannot save enough or earn enough to support their retirement years NEED to Continue Working for an income to sustain the cost of living and medicals.
So, i hope my message is clear and well understood.
YOU’RE RIGHT—WE SHOULD THINK AND AVOID OUR BRAINS GOING LAZY
Hi “shoestring”!
You commented on what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:30 PM in my post #45 “TIME TO DISPEL DARKNESS.”
I got the facts and figures, because I involved myself in the matter through my letter of 21/8/06 to help both the old cabby Koo Tong Huat and MP Seng Han Thong (who was punched by cabby Koo). The criminal case number was PS 1138/2006, and the District Judge was Miss Valerie Kheam.
That day 30/10/06 in her Court 5, DJ Valerie allowed the criminal prosecution to be withdrawn as nice man Mr Seng Han Thong was encouraged by me to forgive him. Cabby Koo then thanked MP Seng for forgiving him.
Th matter had nothing to do with the PAP leaders manipulating the matter to make themselves look good. It had everything to do with MP Seng trying to do his best as an MP.
When the second incident happened again, TNP reporter Ms Vivien Chan went up to cabby Koo and interviewed him. He told Ms Chan he had since become MP Seng’s good friend, and would turn up for MP Seng’s community event in the YCK CC.
Now, I had also given RADM Lui these facts through a copy of my 21/8/06 letter to Mr Seng HT when he became my Moulmein MP. So RADM Lui knew what he was talking about. He would be failing in his duty if he kept quiet, as many of you wanted him to keep quiet. Well, if you have your right to speak, does RADM Lui not have his right to speak too?
After all, he wasn’t telling us that he would want to bring more regulations to control internet activities. He was just lamenting the lack of self-policing in internet, and essentially wanted more kind-hearted, helpful and sensible people like me (and you) to come out in force to help others, such as by shedding light and explaining matters for others to understand.
I helped out because I always believe that Singaporeans MUST HELP Singaporeans. If we do not help ourselves, who do you think will help us, “shoestring”? So you are wrong to write that “The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read.”
Now, if all of us play our part to help each other whenever we could, then we can continue to enjoy our freedom to speak freely and debate with each other, without the need for more government regulations to be brought in. Never mind if we make mistakes with what we say or write.
But when our errors are pointed out to us, we should be honest with ourselves, accept/admit our errors, and make the necessary corrections, and move on. We must not be “lazy” as you correctly said, and mindlessly swallow whatever we heard from other people.
So I would urge you not to be “lazy”. Meet me in Toa Payoh HDB HUB for my lunch treat then, and I will pass you a copy of that 21/8/06 letter I wrote to MP Seng. I will explain more and you can understand better that what RADM Lui said and wished for in Parliament was correct. Will this be a reasonable suggestion to you, sir?
-
{“shoestring” wrote on Wed, 4th Mar 2009 1:36 pm: Oh Tham Eng said:- “What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?” ”
Credibility of debaters is determined by the audience, not the debaters. RADM Lui Tuck Yew …[he] has no grounds for insisting on his opponents’ credibility, when his own credibility is also scrutinized. Credibility does not come with a name. I has to be built and earned……The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read. Neither do they need anyone to tell them who is credible or not. They will decide for themselves……instead of lazy brains expecting to be fed with “credible” delicacies specially picked, washed and shipped from the heavenly places.}