Fang Shihan
The proposed policing of the internet to disallow political campaigning one day before polling day has seemed to create a perception that any form of political talk will be disallowed. It has also generated a fear among internet users that any form of political discussion online will be dealt with a heavy hand.
While PM Lee is right to say that the internet is a grey area, the truth is, it is not. The internet is a tool for communication for most, a space for discussion and a space for all forms of articulated thought including political campaigning. The internet is a rainbow with a minority of extremists from all sides and a majority of moderates lying right in the middle.
It is the policing of the internet that is truly murky and this is what has, like always, generated a substantial amount of fear for the persons involved; even for silent readers of internet content lying outside the constraints of the proposed policy. In this severely unbalanced equation, the bureaucracy seems to have the onus of clamping down on whatever they deem ‘political campaigning’, leaving the groups or persons involved no recourse to proving otherwise before action is taken against them. In other words, can PM Lee guarantee that this new regulation will not provide for excessive constraint on genuine non-partisan, citizen-driven debate?
Though general internet perception may indicate otherwise, these rules bind only a small proportion of content producers – the party websites and their easily identified proxies. Like it or not, most Singaporean voters relying on internet content are intelligent enough to smell a PAP or opposition proxy a mile away. The question to ask is, will the existence of proxies affect the perceived integrity of socio-political non-party websites including TOC?
PM Lee seems to indicate that only websites of political parties will be regulated heavily, since news reporting on the elections will not be affected. It is the spirit and principle of cooling-off, the spirit of disengaging and reflecting that will guide the publication of content on that day. Socio-political websites, if they are truly non-partisan, will not need to keep silent.
Skeptics have also pointed out that this proposed ruling could be advantageous with the party that has control over the mainstream media. While the internet will be subjected to murky regulations, the mainstream media effectively has a monopoly of how they want to cover the news. Remember the 2006 elections when overwhelming attendance during Worker’s Party rallies was blogged about extensively, but not mentioned at all in the mainstream media? Imagine how news coverage of the 2010 elections would be like, if citizen journalists ceased to blog.
Yet this skepticism is unwarranted. In PM Lee’s language, it is the ‘spirit’ that matters. If the spirit of the proposed law is to aid rational choice, it should also allow for the reading of news from all perspectives, not just the mainstream media speaking with a PAP voice.
This leads to another question. If the principle behind the rule is to promote rational choice, does this rule truly then promote rational choice? Though policy-makers may feel that less disorder and no emotions leads to an increased chance for rational choice, they have missed out the unintended consequences of more policing. Self-censorship generated from uncertain regulations (and OB markers) coupled with a historical legacy of excessive media policing, has led to a climate where rational choice is impossible with more regulations.
Rational choice is not made by meditating alone in the corner, facing a wall, and talking to no one but yourself. In a society where voters have little time to digest every bit of political news before campaigning day, reflection is most effective through a dialogue and not disengagement. When dialogue in an IT age takes place over the internet due to its ease of communication, information access, and information sharing, clamping down on that space deprives the voter of a crucial thought process.
In principle, imposing silence will not lead to rational reflection as all sides of the argument must be heard, digested, and processed for it to happen. In practice, clamping down on online non-political society, including sociopolitical blogs, will do nothing but promote ‘emotional voting’ based on fear. Worse still, if it incites a reaction and voters irrationally turn against the establishment out of anger.
Participants in online political debate have little to worry about under this new rule. Though skeptics may argue that excessive policing has happened before and will happen again, one cannot deny that there could possibly be a genuine intention for the very rational, pragmatic government to promote a rational voting populace. If rational choice were to be the outcome of the electoral game, the ruling party must let political debate go on even under the proposed new rule.
(Photos from http://www.electoralgeography.com and Yawning Bread)
Related posts:
- Blogger says he will not observe “cooling-off” period
- PM Lee proposes “24-hour cooling-off” period before Polling Day
- TOC Editorial: Cooling-off day may lead to heated confusion
- RP on Cooling-Off Period
- Rubbish? Look who’s talking
“a historical legacy of excessive media policing” ????
the Media is still excessively policed. They will continue to be as long as PAP is in power. Can you imagine the media being free? Who will be there to lick their balls? PAP will be destroyed in no time!!!
If internet discussion is disallowed, is discussion over the Phone allowed?
How about thru Skype?
Should no one be allowed to use the phone?
How about texting SMS?
Lets discuss this.
“This leads to another question. If the principle behind the rule is to promote rational choice, does this rule truly then promote rational choice? ”
For me at least, this thingie has caused me much distress.
I am very disturbed by it and feel kind of controlled and restricted.
I feel sad for the opposition although i was never a supporter of opposition until…
How to cool off like this?
If anything, it has made me very jittery. kind of unsettling.
How to cool off if the MSM is allowed to broadcast what planned to?
though this cooling off thing is practised by a few other countries as well, we need to question is the rule applied exactly the same or just the name is same?
1. in other countries that have cooling off, do their MSM broadcast political contents on cooling off day? Are their MSM all gov-related?
2. since it is to allow people to think rationally, why still broadcast contents to people? why no blocking ALL political contents?
I am totally speechless about the way things are going.
During national day rally, LHL boasted about opening space for everyone to voice out without restriction, especially on PAP policies. However, this was not the case anymore when they installed camera in Hong Lim Park and now “cooling day” to threaten people from voicing out before voting day. Can we still trust PAP? If words, to them, are not weigh a thousand gold. Why are they still being paid more than a billion dollars in rhetorics? Besides, why is our kangaroo always supportting all these unfair rules and deprive of citizens our rights in our very own land. Are we not the same as north korea and myamar for being treated by our govt as such? Can shanmugan be trusted when he argued this country is fair to the people & alternative parties. As a law ministers, he should be ashamed of making jokes in front of 200 international lawyers and striped off his title immediately.
the Author ShiHan is right. Blogs like TOC are non-political parties.
Unless proven otherwise.
As long as no Defamation, why should they shutdown or stop offering discussions for all citizens including PAP supporters who are welcome to post?
For the sake of our beloved nation, we should allow all non-political sites to run and allow all non-political party members to post their views. As long as not defamatory which has to be proven also as singapore is supposedly based on rule of law.
So, in this aspect i agree with Fang.
one day cooling not enough , should have 2 days cooling, first day cooling all political activities and party banners down, only report of political news from yesterday withoug counter argument or comments from government figures or candidates and 2nd days zero reporting of all political news by all parties.
Then we can say its really cool.
I really don’t get this “cooling-off” nonsense. It’s just so damn wrong-headed.
1) Politicians get down and dirty, they all do, opposition or ruling party, with whatever they can get away with. This macam gentlemen’s agreement is utterly pretentious. Who’s buying it?
2) How astute a political maneuver it is to imply the people are too stupid to vote without forcing them to calm down. (If the people are dumb enough to vote without thinking, they fully deserve what’s coming to them.)
3) Policing opposition sites? Way to go man PAP for building/demanding trust in the Information Age.
4) Governments should rule with a firm arm, not a death grip. The opposition doesn’t have to lift a finger to point out how oppressive PAP is. PAP does a grand old job themselves.
5) What kind of political analysts does the administration have? And what sort of salaries are they on? Haven’t they heard of the Streisand Effect? You try to suppress something on the Internet, it implodes spectacularly. Be more politically savvy lah, get paid so much…
6) A shrewder and more productive “cool off” policy would be to encourage all parties to engage the citizenry on their websites; are there any lingering questions that should be addressed before everyone heads out… Anyone tries anything farnee, says something stupid, lies, it’s on the very public record. It raises the quality of political discourse, accountability and engagement beyond sloganeering instead of flattening it. Everyone benefits; better policians, better voters.
7) Telling bloggers what they can or cannot do flies in the face of reality. “Head in the sand” stoopit. Predictably, bloggers are already out in force and socio-political blogs are gratefully taking the opportunity to claim credibility in spite of gagging orders.
8) I’d love to see how enforcement pans out. That can easily spawn a golden age of anti-PAP blogging based wholly on retaliation and conspiracy theories, and not on merit.
I don’t see the upside at all. What is PAP thinking? Do policy-makers get Internet (“have” and “understand”)? Maybe THEY need to cool off.
if the one day cooling off window was not observed, and the PAP lost their power, They might declare that a re election is needed……
BlindMan,
Don’t be silly. In a Westminster system, the party that wins is the legitimate power. If a coalition beats the current ruling party, the current ruling party has no legal basis for calling a re-election simply because it has lost power.
sian. another stupid law that makes it harder to defend the PAP. tweaking electoral rules which do not benefit us is a surefire way of instilling even more scepticism towards the PAP. bring on more SMCs!
4) Dogs are honest at least on December 3rd, 2009 9.14 pm
Well said. The same applies to tripartism too. The International Labour Organisation endorses tripartism, but it is the not the same variant as NTUC’s tripartism, but PAP and NTUC use it as an excuse to say the international community endorses the Singapore flavour of tripartism.
Since the distrust level of this PAP regime toward its people is ridiculously on the negative extreme, then it is up to the people to tell it to them – that the people cannot trust a government that cannot put its trust (and faith) in the people who voted them into power.
Funny, how politics are in Singapore. Anywhere else in the world you see governments doing things to win the trust of their people. Only in Singapore, the people must win the trust of the government. We must show the PAP government that it must continue to win our trust in them, not the other way around.
The control of the MSM, the frequent political meandering that include changing the constitution at its wimp and fancy, the blaming of its people when things do not go well (not productive, bad English, uncouth behavior) etc. etc. are just some of the more telling areas that clearly show how distrustful this government is of its people.
And now, to top it off, we have to proof ourselves worthy voters; with level-headedness and coolness before we are allowed to decide who we want as representatives of our interests.
If anyone still cannot fathom this outrageous and nonsensical proposition, then it is a sad day indeed for the citizens of Singapore. We have lost our power completely. In any democracy, the power of the people lies in their power to vote. We are now being told how we should vote and in the manner that one political party decides we should vote.
Lose this power and we will be a people lost – lost to our own stupidity.
The problem lies in the fact that something as vague as ’spirit’ can be anyhow interpreted by the MIW.
Ain’t that surprising? look at all the different interpretation that they have…self-serving interpretation
[ If the spirit of the proposed law is to aid rational choice, it should also allow for the reading of news from all perspectives, not just the mainstream media speaking with a PAP voice.]
but who writes the MSM news?
journalists?
TOC International should invite singaporeans either woking overseas long term or living there to share their views on this cooling off with respect to other countries who practised it before and if ALL their MSM are not gov-related if not controlled.
Tripartism in singapore vs tripartism elsewhere for that matter, as mentioned by another reader.
14) lobo76
But all in all, they are humans…we cannot blame them for been too human….you also make the same mistake….
however, the blame should be on all those who don’t admit to their own fault
They don’t trust the merits of their own political agenda to win support in fair fight, how can we voters trust them logically in subsequent?
yah yah… online debate no problem on cooling off day..
but what THEY never tell YOU is, on that day, some volcano under sea near hawaii will erupt and destroy the underwater internet cables on the sea floor. then ST starhub and M1 all no internet on dat day… HAHAHAHHAAA.. sorry, too bad no internet on dat day ah… LOL!!!
… I feel that the 24-hour cooling off period policy needs to be further thought out in terms of implementation. I guess the sentiments that the statutory boards could still, in theory, back up the arguments put forth by the PAP, do have some truths in them.
it is a sad day for pap indeed, they need now a 24 hours cool off period to keep their advantage, GRC is not enough for them ? control media does notw ork anymore ? comes next, ISA arrest in cool off day ?
I think you guys all got it wrong.
This “Cooling off” day is an innovative and Uniquely Singapore way of committing towards the efforts to curb global warming.
I can just imagine that on “Cooling Off Day” you will receive message on your computer that says, “Sorry all servers in Singapore are currently down. Please turn on your TV and radio for news and views to help you reflect on what have been said over the nine days of campaigning. Service will resume the day after polling day. Thank you!”
One thing for sure – PAP is really desperate that they are bending and hitting so low below the belt!