TOC was invited to participate in Channel NewsAsia’s Talking Point to discuss the topic ‘policing the internet’. The programme intended to discuss Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts’ addendum to the President’s Address in Parliament highlighting the challenges of a new media landscape. The addendum says some content creators resort to lies and misinformation while operating under a cloak of anonymity; and hence a code of responsible conduct is needed. ‘But should we, could we, police the new media?’, they wanted to discuss. MP for Tampines GRC, Baey Yam Keng and NTU Professor Ang Peng Hwa were the other panelists.
Watch the discussion HERE.
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
Very interesting discussion. I thought TOC’s Ravi spoke very well- good arguments by him. Also MP Baey has some good points. But I feel that the progamme should be longer so that more views can be heard. Maybe also have a hotline for viewers to call in.Makes the discussion more interesting.
I may be wrong but never expect any conclusion from such programming.
Did jin gave answer to MP YSL’s question on employmt pass figures?
Why the SECRECY?
Cyber policing should be confined mainly to commercial fraud, pornography and criminal intimidation and blackmail. Comments on socio-economic and political issues should not be subjected to restrictions and it will impinge on freedom of speech.
Cyber policing takes up alot of time and resources and may be difficult to carry out. It is better to concentrate on educating the public to be more aware of online predators. Let Caveat Emptor be the watchword for all netizens.
BYK spoke of cyber-crime like consumer fraud needing regulation. What about telemarketing used to defraud consumer by “bait-and-switch’ to defraud trusting consumers even in the financial services sector when telephone taping is illegal at law.
How about getting MINLAW to review the legislation to allow consumers to tape telemarketing solicitation for the protection of consumer and public interest?
And what about policing of internet traffic when predators going around “grooming” under-aged children for sexual exploitation?
@ Titiana Ann Xavier
ABSOLUTELY, well said.
The government is no fools. They cannot be concern with the crimes online. To have people to police the internet, its crazy. You need huge resources. Employing a few hundred people to go through all the websites daily and investigate suspicious site. OMG. The task is phenomenal.
All the government wish to do is to stop you and I making comment online. They don’t like to be criticize even how well intended it is meant to be. They have extremely thin skin.
@ Titiana Ann Xavier
Yes, absolutely right, nothing more to add. I haven’t yet watch the discussion, did any of the panelist bring this up?
@busybody
The President got exposed during his campaign. Now that he is in, he wastes no time to hit back. This is mainly in revenge to his son, Patrick Tan’s NS case.
I am right afterall, that Tony Tan is a very vindictive man.
Laws! Laws! And More Laws!!
This shows who cannot take the heat??
LAW IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIVING, NOT FOR THE DEAD.
The danger of excessive laws is that it may be abused for the protection of nearly political dead in utter desperation of preservation of power and corrupt money.
Dear Titiana
I agree fully with you. Hands off to policing as long as comments are not libellous.
With the government controlled media now viewed with distrust and the new media has become the tool for the “suppressed”, no wonder the government want to suppress it. That is the intended purpose of the proposed new laws. Just like their counterparts in Malaysia, no one trusts the printed/TV media anymore. Of course some mails are stupid and wrong. But the main thrusts of proper critisms get through and this is what irks the government. There is nothing to fear except if you are incompetent, corrupt or abusing your powers.
One of our elected MP spoke of uncomfortable “discovery” that at least 80% of online discourse is anti-government, so something must be wrong with the online bloggers and mindset.
I would suspect that a lot of online bloggers thinks it is her head that needs re-examination of logic and mental calculus.
When latched dog MSM blocked dissenting voices of the other 45% from public discourse space in the forum page and they are forced to congregate in the balance of 20% cyberspace domain, wouldn’t the 45% looks very crowded in that narrow confines of online world?
She then advocated heavier dose of law regulation of cyber discourse. Doesn’t she realises that the excesses and extra judicial abuse of law like ISD made law the enemy of citizenry and public interest instead of protection of public interest?
Or maybe her knowledge of maths, logic and laws are different and superior from the rest of us?.
If not, then one of us should take over from her public service role in 2016 – all in the cause and good of public interest, not interested in the MP’s wasteful allowance of $15K per month.
If the internet/social media need policing, then the pap controlled main stream media all the more need policing.
“not happy call police lah.”
sounds like a sentence from some local sitcoms & comedies in the past, repeated time & again.
so our world class govt want to do just that? cannot criticise, so bad things even if true? like my neighbour dun like the smell of curry & durians, just call police?
can i call police if staff kenna customer complain, boss complain? what new laws can realistically be drafted? must the customer & boss offer a solution or an alternative then can complain?
how does one police critism?
Policing the Internet is like policing people’s lunjiaos and chee byes. Really, if that’s what the gov wants to do, I suggest they close down all sex shops, wipe out all geylands and even social cluds and pubs where men and women look for free fark.
Or, pass laws that penalize your humanity which encompasses behaviors that stem from one’s stupidity and immaturity etc etc.
Basically, like what religion does, find fault with your imperfection, including your lack of knowledge and angst in life, and capitalize on your stupidity.
Yes, police please go arrest gamblers, in casino,who contribute to social ills in society.
Police tomolo go close down casino and arrest every shareholders, employees, participants, and garbermen people who brought SINFUL casino into SIN.
Seriously, Mr Gov.,I do not fear false, mischievious and misleading information in the Internet. So long as I read, and your education system you created has not been wasted in me, I will eventually arrive to the truth – sometimes with the help of netizens.
However, what I fear most is the abuse of the laws by hypocrites. The worse kind are the rich,educated and self righteous hypocrites in power and scheme to retain power perpetually.
This deluded kind is the cause of the destruction of humanity and the world!
If the government is concerned whether there is a critical analysis of the facts, it must first attempt to promote critical thinking in the Singapore’s classrooms. IN Australia, etc. philosophy and critical analysis is taught at primary and secondary schools. In SIngapore, this is not the case. Why? My family are all teachers and they tell me critical thinking is not taught in primary and secondary schools here.
losing 1 grc certainly woke them up, but as usual they decide to fix others then to fix themselves. WELL DONE!
POLICING THE INTERNET?
Does the Internet need Police?
No, only despots need Police to watch over dissidents.
we are not under ROME’s LAWs but under the spirit of grace.
I find the claim by Mr Baey that the Govt will police the Internet for commercial fraud, crime against humanity and other such societal issues most hypocritical. These evils have been around since time immemorial and this Government did not rise up in the last fifty years to pursue the progenitors or such crime or any crime in such a fundamentally sweeping manner as proposed to be done by Mr Baey on the Internet. He is lying to us. What he wants done is to shut down the vociferous denunciations by the citizenry against the acts of the Ruling Party.
The Internet is an ethereal being, waving streams of elementary particles looping around the Earth at almost the speed of light. There is no centre. It spins ethereal habitations as websites. Every web site is thus ephemeral. If one is torn down another will replace it or multiple sites will replace it. The only weak point is the human propensity to cave in and reveal the identity of the contributor to the PAP. Therefore, if TOC caves in, then the netizens are done for. But not absolutely. Recall that even that great superpower the US is not able to kill Wikileaks by technology or by Law. The US however has managed however to cripple Wikileaks by getting the purveyors of credit card facilities to with-hold their services from Wikileaks so that Wikileaks is starved of funds. TOC is orders of magnitude smaller in scale of operation. Singaporeans can fund TOC by snail mail cheques. So TOC and its species will survive. I have no worry. The mafia has no ability to bring down this wonder of the 20th Century, the Internet.They are too daft.
Interesting to note the starting statements on crime and fraud and the later statements on responsibility and discernment with education thrown in.
The reply on generality was not answered. Herein lies the problems. As a user most netizens would not and hope that the government will not use the guise of generalities to censor discussions.
The crux of the matter is do we as Singaporeans have problems in housing, employment, education, healthcare (or areas where provision or intervention is needed). Well unless you are from Mars, the answer to me is a yes. This you find it online as well as from talking with fellow Singaporeans.
You might however not get it from the grassroots as it has not functioned, well at least in terms of feedback and is both a cause of concern from the grass roots and the users of the information.
Thus to interpret the voices as anti Party is simplistic and misses out the real issue of problems. and the very general statement on tradeoffs. As there is but a single party with super majority, and with very little real evaluation of policies with feedback the comments may seem directed at the Elites.
They are first and foremost a cry of desperation for Changes in what is deemed Sinaporean First. A statement that is very important for the failure to convey it’s intentions and allow for feedback and adjustments will only mean the Government of the day will have increasing problems in nation building. A nation that is alienated and the signs are already there. Look at the EP results. Despite endorsements the preferred candidate only secured about 35% votes.
If it is time about revamping, this is the time for 6 odd months have been lost since the GE2011 and the nation awaits it’s leaders ‘ decision and action.
The issues will not go away by shutting the net or not discussing about effectiveness of policies for as it stands most of us are already wondering. Are the Elites as lost as we are as to what is happening? Or it is just a matter of their principles or policies on trade offs?
Whether said or not, the masses will make their own judgements and the Internet does help the Elites ( despite discomfort) as well as the opposition, but more importantly as they are unfettered and available on a non party or governmental website it allows for freedom of expression of opinions and feedback on what is clearly lacking now. A general and realistic judgement or feedback of problems on the
ground. It is thus not wise if this be dispensed of despite the discomfort.
Policing the internet is not going to ingratiate the PAP with pro-opposition Singaporeans. It is just going to drive their opinions underground, deny the PAP a feel of ground sentiment and is not likely to result in a better showing at the polls.
Talk of policing doesn’t address the need for the ruling party to find ways of winning hearts and minds of Singaporeans. To win hearts and minds, PAP needs to sell itself harder, not regulate expression of ground sentiment more tightly.
What policing the internet means? They will have a special police department reporting to PAP chief everyday. They will note all dissenting websites like TOC and Temasek Review etc. They will force them to review who commented on their websites. It will be done forcibly by making them review the ip address of those dissenting voices.
It will never be like having police officer patrolling the internet looking into every web pages for possible crime. Even google cannot afford to do that if they want to.
However if the website is located offshore then how can they police unless they have collaboration with overseas countries. Try to collaborate with Iran and see what happened. Even USA will not be able to police the internet.
Sad to say Singaporean is always being bullied by their leaders. Nothing much could be added to that.
@Fearless and @john,
Absolutely, agree with you both. Hypocracy is rearing its ugly head again.
Honestly, if they’ve not done anything wrong or have been doing the right thing, why the need to have such a counter action?
Is this lack of confidence in the system they’ve put in placed? An excuse to stamp out criticism and drown voices meant to be heard? Or alternative way to have full control over all media to their benefits to spread propaganda and only allow their version to be heard?
Food for thought and digestion.
The fact that the programme came out from CNA, yet another pap-controlled channel, whatever discussed or announced cannot be taken seriously or taken as worthy.
How ironic- CNA’s talk about policing the media- they are the police, the pap police.
Hypocrites.Cahoots.
To police the people, one must have this thing call ‘Integrity’.
SPF got integrity? -that TPL’s case.
pap got integrity? – that 12 year NS deferment case.
CNA got integrity (and objectivity)? – that recent programme loudspeakering of pap’s TPL and Nair.
No probs, if they si stupid as to make such laws, then we have to abide by it.
Everytime we see a ‘not-so-right’ web-site, we will go down to the police station and make a police report. Then we wait and see what the investigation comes up with!!
Not so sure how much more manpower they will have to cope with it? Perhaos import another million philipinos for it?
See the case of Tin Pei Lin? They will not aim u if nvr make them angry.
Everyone should listen to this video to understand why INTERNET must not be censored or regulated. Thanks to one TOC blogger in another thread – TOC’s commitment to our readers – I found it agreeing with a lot of my own thought and I made some observation on that thread too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIQ5-W1Epw&feature=player_embedded
Paid MSM journalism, politicians and investment banks are a nest of strange bedfellows comprising of prostitutes, mafia and swindlers – same bed different dreams as the Chinese wisdom thinking has it.
Those who controlled and manipulated MSM in any country must NOT regulate internet by law of any socio-economic discourse in any shape or form.
OTHERWISE IT IS FURTHER CORRUPTION OF CORRUPT POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST.
Tch said the patrick ns derfmt was proper?
Did he say how many years so that even those ignorant of the issue is aware ?
Engrish is a tool
The moment politics legislate or censor socio-political discourse or regulate such websites, they are telling me one and only inescapable truth – CORRUPT CROOKS ARE FEARFUL OF PUBLIC EXPOSURE OF TRUTHS.
Why? internet is the only neutral platform I can write what is on my mind for the world to see before it is deleted via censorship and shut out forcibly by the forces of evil legislation. Likewise, those who disagree with me can write what is on his/her mind for the world to see – UNOBSTRUCTED since I can’t censor or legislate his/her opposing thoughts publishing.
If you legislate to oppress my penning of what is in my mind, you must, by definition of that revealing conduct, FEARFUL OF DEFEAT AND ALSO ADMITTING OF DEFEAT IN DECEPTION.
What a convincing way of telling ALL voters, you are UNFIT TO LEAD AND GOVERN, we voters are compelling urged and advised by the blatant dictatorial action of self-exposure of your corrupt interests, to vote you monkeys out in the next election for the sole preservation of our mass survival.
No angel of virtuous preaching can have unprotected sex with prostitutes by concealment of his such habitual tendencies and not fearful of contracting HIV and/or any strains of STDs.
NOT LOGICAL?
司马昭之心，人人皆知。。。
Someone mentioned about the cost of supervising the internet in Singapore. When Francis Seow was in USA, the Papies spend a huge sum of money to monitor his activities (as if he is a person against national interest) and when questioned by the opposition the then law minister jayakumar said that the monies were well spent 100%.
SO WHO CARES ABOUT THE COSTS. If it has to be monitored then it will be done at all costs. Here the Papies would place their unique brain to work.
Ideas are mooted to create a ‘dome’ in the cyberspace that will protect the Papies Singapore from influences and thoughts that are detrimental to the Papies existence in the long run.
Insider information:
Curb the social media asap. Well before 2016 so that it will not be an issue during the elections. Singaporeans are considered forgiving and daft.
Continue the influx of migrants to increase Singaporeans voters base by another 10 to 20%. No more CC functions to issue certificates of citizenship and public display. Discreet is the word. Silents docs approval only
@Eugene, you have nailed the money on the head. Cost is no concern for the PAP when they use state resources to do their dirty work. Well they have probably spent millions on checking out the activities of Francis Seow while he is in America. Not their own money but the taxpayers’ money is used. When the ISD was harassing me and my family at immigration checkpoints for a period of two years, I guess that the expenditure of time, labour and missed opportunities could easily add up to a few hundred thousand dollars. I even wrote to the AG to interview us once and for all, to save all these stoppages at the checkpoints. To jail us if necessary.But no reply. What does the Government care. It is money well spent to assist their comrade in the Law firm, as the ICA did rattle us and soften our resolve at the Court hearings. Therefore, it is not the waste of public funds that these PAP officials are considering. If $10 billion dollars were to be spent annually in suppressing the new media, it could mean that the Ministers can earn their $50 million annually in the exchange. To the PAP that is a good exchange.
We are not dealing with people with a normal sense of right and wrong. Power is so sweet that the sweet chemistry of their blood has changed the circuitry of their brains.
Ravi and the NUS prof did a good job. Both gave it to them, one, two and three. Now the ball is in their court. As usual, they will fumble it or worst everyone will pretend to be suddenly deaf. No wonder whatever the PM says is worthless, with people like Baey trying his best to win over netizens with his broken record rhetoric. One thing is clear. They will get their internet code of conduct alright. But whether netizens decide to sign up is a different matter completely.
to : Mr Baey
What u mean ” Public Interest”? U may use term ” PAP Interest” instead !
Law or No Law, fear not so long you write and speak the truth. The truth shall prevail once the law kicks in. Only the liars and fraudsters have to fear as they will be exposed, caught and prosecuted in court. I like to read and hear the truth and not lies, lies or untruths in the articles.
It is no secret that this ‘kiangsu and kiangsi’ government intends to curb the internet with stringent rules to prevent public from exposing their wrong policies. Under the disguise of curbing cyber crimes, their main motive is to prevent opposing views and criticisms. The more rules they imposed the more determined the people will want to find the truth. Like Mr Ravi said, ‘you chopped off one, two will pop up’. It will be a failure for them.
policing the ITERNET highways?
as a taxpayer of this country,i would much prefer the govt POLICE OUR HIGHWAYS first.
‘policing’ is not to be miscontrued with ‘banning’,i believe?
GOOD N HoNEST FEEDACKS like we get here should not be ‘POLICED’ OUT in that sense.
It appears to me the policing is politically motivated or not?
Should we be surprised?
When the govt is incapable of defending itself credibly due to its ingerent shortcomings, it is only to be expected that it would once again (it has NEVER intended to change) resort to making it ‘ILLEGAL’ to strip it/ expose it many shortfalls online. It’s politics of staying in power.
It can’t handle the truth. That’s about the long and short of it.
Social Media have revealed many issues which the MSM failed to publish or expose.
TRE paid the price but they exposed the NS skiving issue by the President’s son.
The minister of defence ng claimed that partick was given a 12year deferment.
Where in the world in national service they defer you for so loooong???
No amount of legislation can stop me from baeying like a donkey.
I suggest these to control the internet.
Sg to buy the intellectual property rights to internet.
Good news: no one can own or owns the internet.
2. Buy baidu, googer, yahoo, facebook, youtube, toc, fox network, cnn, bbc, abc, cctv, cnbc, …. Still have 1000 to list but there is not enough money to buy more ….
Good news: money no enough. Suggest : up coe to 101000 per piece and reduce coe term to 3 years only. Up erp to charge $1000 per entry at any hour, any day. Gantry starts at entrance to alll roads.
Yes, i have solved traffic congestion. I put my name on it. No road will be jammed.
I hereby copyright my solution that guarantees no traffic congestion 24×7. No one have solved traffic congestion till this moment. Its me.
Do not steal my solution, thieves.
Eugene
Before social media became a world phenomenon, the westerners also did not need it to have transparency.
The problem is the citizens mentality.
WHY NOT MAKE IT SIMPLE?
PASS A NEW LAW , and wp cannot stop it anyways since outnumbered, to BAN POLITICAL THINGIE OF ANY THINGIE?
Problem solved.
Do i deserve a million a quarter?
@ Bully Vanginus Lee
or better still, we can adopt the tried, tested and adored carrot and stick method.
we make internet so expensive that only the richest 20% of the population can afford, in that way surely we can get rid of a lot of ppl who simply talk rubbish, spam or defame other ppl on the internet.