Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is the Head of Policy Research of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

What I wanted to ask the Australian PM

I took an afternoon off from work to attend the 29th Singapore Lecture at the Ritz-Carlton, during which Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister delivered a keynote address.

I had a few questions to ask him, but unfortunately despite being one of the first to stand up in front of the mike, DPM Jayakumar, the lecture’s chairman, overlooked me.

Anyway some friends whom I bumped into there wanted to know what I was going to ask. So here goes…

My question relates to your proposed Asia Pacific Community, which would include ASEAN, East Asia, India, Australia and the US. I think this is an important idea for people in our region to discuss. But as you know, good ideas don’t always get off the ground.

Your idea has received a rather frosty reaction from ASEAN. How do you plan to push through your idea while allaying the fears that this is an Australian-led initiative that might end up sidelining ASEAN?

If the APC were to be centered around ASEAN, just like the East Asia Summit is now, would you support it as strongly as you do now?

What has the reaction to your idea been like in Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, New Delhi and Washington?

If anyone has an insider’s answer to my questions, do let me know!

YouthQuake: The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore

A plug on behalf of my friend Bernard who is organizing this.

—————-

“The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore”

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing is holding a public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. This forum series is into its fourth installment. The topic for this session focuses on how youth can propose and carry forward a refreshing new approach to women issues in Singapore. YouthQuake offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and we are confident that the forum topic will stimulate participants to debate and discuss. We thus encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today’s youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues.

YouthQuake: The Battle Cry of Singaporean Youth

The details of the YouthQuake Forum are as follows:

Date: 16th August 2008 (Saturday)

Time: 1430 hrs – 1630 hrs.

Venue: Workers’ Party HQ, 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03

The speakers for this event will be:

1. Dana Lam- Teo

Dana will be providing an overview on the story of feminism and a history of women’s activism and achievements in Singapore since independence in 1965 and how the role of women in Singapore society has evolved over the decades. She will also be touching on what the women’s movement is all about and why is it relevant today. Looking ahead, Dana will conclude by speaking on certain issues that she believes will be most relevant to AWARE in the current internet age.

2. Lee Lilian

Lilian believes that no women in Singapore should be taking on the burden of single motherhood willingly and single-handedly. Her presentation entitled “The predicament of a single-mother in Singapore” shall illustrate how the stigma of being a single mother still exists in Singapore society and why we should accept single-motherhood as a respectable part of our society. She will also propose some recommendations on how the government can provide a better support network for them.

3. Koh Kai Lin

Kai Lin’s presentation entitled, “1.29 to 2.1” is a reflection on boosting the birth rate among young women in Singapore and why financial incentives unveiled in recent years to encourage married Singaporeans to have more babies have failed to significantly cure Singapore’s baby blues. She will be offering creative and radical measures aimed at boosting Singapore’s flagging birth rate. What exactly works best for young women in the local context will also be discussed.

4. Selene Cheng

The working women in Singapore has to grapple daily with the ideals and responsibilities imposed on them by the nation, society, family and the organisations they work for. Selene will be examining the roles of working women in a globalised economy and will offer suggestions on how businesses and the government can go about creating flexible work opportunities for women.

In order to assist in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with Bernard Chen @ bernardchen@wp.sg or email the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg by 14th August 2008 (Thursday).

Past performance no guarantee of future results

Straits Times Forum, 26 July 2008:

Opposition yet to show it can deliver, unlike PAP

I REFER to Wednesday’s letter by Mr Alvin Tan, ‘JBJ must be careful if he wishes to espouse Singapore’s cause’.

I admire Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for his fighting spirit. Even though he is 82, he is still actively engaged in politics. I hope he will retire graciously.

I welcome an opposition, provided it is constructive and helps Singapore make progress.

I have been through six or seven general elections. At each one, the opposition candidates always seem to have the same agenda. They criticise government policies and fight for freedom of speech, but they say nothing about how to help raise national productivity or revenue.

The People’s Action Party Government has given us a well-run system. Because of this, all my siblings have at least 10 years of education, they own Housing Board homes, and their children can have a tertiary education and hold stable jobs.

This is what we want for our future generations.

I would like to recount an incident in the 1960s, when I was a secondary student.

I had the opportunity to meet then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at the official opening of Outram Hill Community Centre. He had walked from Outram Road up Outram Hill. The moment he offered me his hand, I did not hesitate to shake it.

I had the feeling then that Singapore was in good hands.

Voting for the opposition now, in the light of what the Government has promised and fulfilled, would amount to dismantling what it has achieved, and moving backwards.

Lee Choon Wah

As investment advisors point out: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I agree that the Opposition has till now not been able to offer plausible solutions to the problems we face, or will face in the future. However, Singaporeans need to be careful not to simply dismiss the need for an opposition, just like the PAP does.

If anything, the best buffer against Singapore’s future slide is a capable and honest opposition that can take over the reins if the PAP should fail — and it will fail eventually, just like the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians did. (Obviously it is inappropriate for me to compare the PAP with the greatness of the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.)

Obama: Dissent does not make one unpatriotic

Barack Obama delivered another stirring address in Independence, Missouri a few days before the American independence day. In his speech, he defined what patriotism meant to him. So much of his speech is applicable even to Singapore and Singaporeans. Below are excerpts from his remarks. The full text of the speech can be found on at the Washington Post blog.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMbBuEoEYnk&hl=en&fs=1]

Dissent does not make one unpatriotic.

No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.

Patriotism starts as a gut instinct. My grandfather explaining to me that we could do anything we set our mind to do.

What makes America great is not its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better. Our revolution was waged for that belief. That we could be governed by laws, not men. That we could be equal in the eyes of those laws. That we could be free to say what we want, and assemble with whomever we want. And worship as we please. That we could pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help others pursue theirs.

Patriotism is not just loyalty to a place on a map or a particular people group. It is also loyalty to America’s ideals. Ideals for which anyone can sacrifice for, or defend.

Patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to a particular leader, or government or policy.

Mark Twain…once wrote: “Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals…But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.

true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.

Govt’s graduate equation needs balancing

During last year’s National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced plans to set up a fourth university in Singapore, targeting 30 per cent of each cohort to enter publicly-funded universities.

However, based on the past week’s news, it appears the Government is now preparing the ground for a possible downgrading of these plans.

More education could mean less growth: Minister

On 11 June, TODAY reported that Singapore Polytechnic had just launched a scholarship programme to groom top students to be future ministers. The report hinted that university degrees may not even be necessary to reach the highest offices in the land. Polytechnic diplomas could suffice.

Later that day, in his first major speech since his appointment, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen told an Australian university alumni gathering that “more education does not necessarily mean more growth”. He cautioned against a “fixation” with numerical targets for undergraduate enrolment, and said that “expanding education thoughtlessly may actually weaken the link with growth”.

This was also reported on by TODAY on June 12th.

The minister then sounded another alarm that increasing university numbers may reduce the overall quality of education. He further warned that universities could drain teachers from secondary schools. (It is puzzling why the minister thinks future universities will be staffed by National Institute of Education graduates, rather than PhD holders.)

Most of Dr Ng’s postulations were quoted from the book, Does Education Matter?: Myths about Education and Economic Growth by Alison Wolf, a professor at King’s College London. The minister’s press secretary pointed this out in a reply to TODAY on 14 June, wherein she accused the paper of “inaccurate and misleading” reporting.

Having read the minister’s entire 18-page speech, I thought there was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the article ran by TODAY. The minister quoted extensively from that book, and spent the next five pages of his speech arguing that more university education may not lead to economic growth, and that our technical institutes (ITEs) and polytechnics are serving our needs wonderfully. It is not unreasonable to assume then that Prof Wolf’s theories lined up with Dr Ng’s own views and, by extension, those of the Government.

Foreign talent and the “flexible labour policy”

The Government has always been unapologetic about its utilitarian approach in moulding the education system to meet market needs. However, foreign employment figures over the past few years point to a failure of the education system in producing the skilled manpower that employers are demanding.

As of December 2006, there were about 83,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore[i]. The EP is a work pass for foreigners, usually degree holders, whose monthly salary ranges exceeds $2,500. These professionals are commonly referred to as “foreign talent”, who possess the skills and talents that our local graduates lack — or so we are told.

This means that Singapore is short of about 80,000 university graduates to support the economy. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly lament about the shortage of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it can solve this problem by providing more university places and financial support for Singaporeans to complete their higher education.

The Government has explained that it wants to maintain a “flexible labour policy”, which sees it issuing more work passes during boom years, and cutting back during economic downturns.

While that sounds good in theory, the reality on the ground may not be so straightforward. There is no guarantee that during lean years, employers will suddenly awaken to their patriotic duty to retrench only foreigners and retain Singaporeans.

In fact, the additional costs of employing Singaporeans — paying CPF, granting National Service and maternity leave — mean that the pragmatic choice for employers would be to fire the Singaporeans and keep the foreigners when profits are down.

One step forward, two steps back

The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education. Back in 2003, a committee helmed by Dr Ng himself rejected the idea of setting up a fourth university. Now even with the commitment from the Prime Minister to expand local university places, he seems to be tempering expectations.

The argument that having more universities will lower overall standards is a red herring. No one wants the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) to lower their standards and rankings. There is no reason to expect this to happen if a fourth or fifth university were to be set up. Why can’t each university be the “best in its class”? A culture of excellence is, after all, the Singaporean way.

Even if Singapore were to go into recession, Singaporeans will still be better off as unemployed graduates than as unemployed non-graduates. After all, if graduates can’t find jobs locally, they can more easily seek employment overseas. This is one of the key benefits of making Singaporeans “world ready”, as the Government aims to do.

Political cost of higher education

Why does the Government seem reluctant to drastically expand graduate numbers? Compared to other developed countries, Singapore’s proportion of graduates is dismal. Only 23 per cent of each cohort in Singapore graduates from university. In Australia, 60 per cent hold degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent.

Perhaps the Government realises that having “too many” educated citizens may be politically inconvenient, especially if the economy does poorly and graduate unemployment numbers increase. With their stronger ability to articulate grievances, vocal graduates may require our highly-paid ministers to spend much more time thinking of the right way to “fix” them or “buy” them over.

Already, support in Singapore for a more pluralistic government is highest among the educated classes. A post-2006 election survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies found that most Workers’ Party supporters were from the upper-middle and above household income group. A higher proportion of respondents with university qualifications also felt there is a need to reform the election system.

The fourth university: yes but not quite?

We can expect that in the coming months, the Ministry of Education and its “nation-building” press will continue to wax lyrical about how wonderful our ITEs and polytechnics are, and how their graduates find jobs much faster than university graduates. They will sound more warnings about how more graduates could mean poorer overall quality — just like “those other countries”.

Finally, Singaporeans will be informed that the fourth university will be set up as promised, but it will be just a small liberal arts college with a cosy 200 or so students.

Meanwhile, thousands of Singaporeans, desperate for a university education, will continue to flock to overseas universities each year, in pursuit of that degree that they could have obtained at a much lower cost had there been more places in local universities.

More graduates needed for knowledge economy

A fundamental shift in mindsets with respect to university education is needed. Our knowledge economy needs many more graduates, and it will be better to fill the skilled positions with Singaporeans rather than importing more foreign talent.


Update: Since this article was first publised on 17 June on The Online Citizen, the government has announced that Singapore’s fourth university will eventually be a liberal arts college taking in up to 2,500 students annually. I’m glad I was wrong on this count. However, its intake will still fall way short of the 4,000 students who go to Australia year each seeking university degrees.

——————–

Related articles:

· Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore

· Education is the best social welfare

[i] Figures provided in a reply by then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen to a Parliamentary question on 17 July 2007.

Passport blunder: It’s Singaporeans who are negligent

First they let a dangerous terrorist slip away during his toilet break, and Singaporeans were told we were complacent.

Then, they let a retiree get through the checkpoints with the wrong passport. Now we are told we are negligent.

Straits Times, 25 June

Passport blunders leave S’poreans stranded
By Jessica Lim

SINGAPOREANS are a negligent lot when it comes to passports, travel agents told The Straits Times on Wednesday.

It is not common for travellers to make a mad dash to the airport with the wrong passport, some said, but added that,more often, they show up at the airport with expired passports or without the required visas.

Some forget their passports altogether.

Travel agencies contacted by The Straits Times say they make it a practice to call travellers before their flights with reminders to pack their passports and check that everything is in order.

Despite this, one in 10 will goof up every month….

Dr Teo Ho Pin, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs, also called on travellers to exercise some responsibility.

He said: ‘In the most recent case, it is a genuine mistake, but that is not an excuse. If you travel with the wrong documents, you’re breaking the rules.’

It seems this government and the press that they control are intent to shifting the spotlight to Singaporeans’ shortcomings whenever they make an embarrassing blunder.

In this case, the GPC chairman for Home Affairs, the ministry responsible for this blunder, has the nerve to lecture Singaporeans on exercising responsibility.

When will a real leader stand up and accept responsibility for these “appalling” mistakes?

.

Religion and its discontents

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights that most of the world has agreed on — at least in principle. In practice, however, people in many countries continue to face restrictions to varying degrees in the practice of their own faith. In this article, we examine the situation in Singapore.

A universal right

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948. The UDHR forms the basis for the International Bill of Human Rights which has taken the force of international law since 1976. This means that all 192 member states of the UN are legally obliged to abide by this declaration.

Freedom of religion in Singapore

In Singapore, freedom of religion is also enshrined in our Constitution. Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states that:

(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.

Many Singaporeans may not be aware of this, but freedom of religion in Singapore is accorded to every person, in contrast with freedom of speech and expression (Article 14) which is a privilege technically enjoyed by only Singaporeans.

People of faith in Singapore are fortunate to enjoy the freedom to practice their religion, both within the confines of their religious institutions and, to a more limited extent, outside. Singaporeans enjoy a level of freedom of worship of the same — or possibly even greater — degree than in advanced democracies.

That Singapore has managed to uphold religious freedom despite our history of racially and religiously-motivated violence is something that the government and the people must be commended for.

‘Religious touting’

Despite the general satisfaction with the state of religious freedom in Singapore, some rumblings of discontent can be heard on the Internet and in the mainstream media.

In his June 15 piece on The Online Citizen (TOC), Religion and the right not to respect it, Joel Tan lamented that society accorded a lopsided deference to religion, sometimes at the expense of other fundamental human rights.

On April 12 this year, the Straits Times published a forum letter by Wee Feng Yi, who in addition to complaining about the “noticeable trend by Singaporeans to proselytise in public”, proposed enacting a law to ban “religious touting”.

Back in 2005, the Straits Times ran an Insight feature on proselytising in the public sphere. It highlighted public concerns about proselytising in schools and hospitals. The Ministry of Education made clear its stance on the issue.

A common thread in all these articles is the unhappiness in some quarters with unwelcome proselytisation by Christians.

There is usually no shortage of secular viewpoints on this matter. Many secularists clearly relish the opportunity to pummel religion — and Christianity in particular — for bringing their beliefs into the public sphere. It is fashionable for intellectuals to brand organised religion as being backward, intolerant and not given to reason, unlike their more “enlightened” secular world-views. It is not unusual to see religion being held responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. US President George Bush’s much derided neo-conservative agenda is inevitably tied to his “fundamentalist” Christian faith.

It is interesting that — at least in Singapore — the same people who are so open about their criticisms of Christians hide behind the cloak of “religious harmony” to avoid criticising other religions in the same manner.

Fair criticism

Of course not all the criticisms are without merit. As a Christian, I have seen and known a few Christians whose “evangelistic” actions seem motivated more by proving themselves right and others wrong, than by genuine love and concern for those who do not share their faith.

One of the authors of the New Testament anticipated that this would be a problem. In his A.D. 56 letter to the ancient church in Corinth, Paul the apostle warned his flock that: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” Right things must be done in the right way or they will be perceived as wrong things.

Christian teachings clearly instruct followers that love must be the main motivation of everything we do. Evangelising with any other motivation will likely produce a negative reaction — and deservedly so.

In response to the 2005 Straits Times article on proselytising in hospitals, the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship told the paper that “Under no circumstances should doctors abuse the professional relationship with the patient and compel a patient to embrace a certain faith.”

Methodist bishop, Dr Robert Solomon, who is also a medical doctor, said: “When you’re treating patients, their religious views are important and need to be taken into consideration. That dimension will be cut off from the process of healing if we get to the stage where talking about religion is complete anathema… But if the doctor brings upthe issue, and the patient is uncomfortable, then I think a line has been crossed.”

Not an excuse to curb religious freedom

I agree with this moderate stance on this issue of religion and the public sphere. The vast majority of Christians that I know are extremely sensitive — often even to the point of being fearful — when talking to their friends about their faith. Insensitive Christian evangelists make up a very small minority of the faithful.

Having said that, it is also unfair to label any Christian who makes the effort to tell others about their faith a religious tout. Religious faith is something that is intensely personal. It is impossible to compel someone to embrace a certain faith. No one can be forced to genuinely believe in something against one’s will.

Many secularists have argued that there should be a thick wall of separation from religion in the public sphere. The Straits Times forum writer mentioned above had even argued for proselytisation to be banned, despite the right to “propagate” one’s religion being codified in our Constitution.

This is sadly misguided.

Secularists have often charged that Christians hold an exclusive world-view and expect others to conform to their views. In doing so, they have failed to recognise that they too are expecting people of faith to unquestio
ningly accept their concept of keeping the public sphere free of religion.

The way forward

I believe freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious harmony can all co-exist. We can have all three without impinging on each others’ rights.

Evangelists of all religions need to always respect others’ deeply-held beliefs, learn when to draw the line and always let their actions be motivated by love and concern for their fellow man, rather than self-seeking pride.

Liberal secularists on the other hand, would do well to apply their same standards of freedom of political and artistic expression to the realm of religious expression.

.

Political Films and the Ruling Party

During yesterday’s Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform, the subject of “party political” films was discussed and debated.

For readers who are not already aware, films which promote any political party in Singapore are banned. The relevant legislation is Section 33 of the Films Act. Section 35 of the Films Act is an omnibus law that gives the Minister absolute discretion to ban any film that, in his opinion, is “not in the public interest”.

The 13 bloggers who submitted the proposal on Internet freedom unanimously agreed that both these pieces of legislation should be repealed.

Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, yesterday appeared to be in favour of keeping this law. Citing a recent conference he attended in Canada, he argued that since films tend to have a strong emotive appeal, they could easily be used to “distort the truth”. His words were covered well by The Sunday Times today.

I’m glad Tan Tarn How, a researcher from the Institute of Policy Studies, debunked this false dichotomy. He said that voting is an emotional exercise and there is nothing wrong with appealing to the emotions.

I also gave my views to the panel and the audience after Tan:

When we were drafting the section on the regulation of political content on the Internet, we were well aware that the removal of Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act will benefit the ruling party more than the opposition. This is because the PAP, with its vast resources, will be able to put out much slicker and emotive videos than the opposition could.

In fact, even if the opposition were to put out a video that “distorts the truth”, with its easy access to the mass media, the PAP could easily debunk it and reveal the opposition’s lie.

But what the PAP perhaps fears, is if on Day 6 of the nine day election campaign period, an opposition party puts out a truthful video that uncovers a real misdeed on the part of the ruling party (eg, a top lawyer fixing judicial appointments or a Health Minister committing adultery in a hotel room), then the whole tide of the electorate could suddenly turn against the government and vote them out of power.

Perhaps this is why they want to continue to keep that law.

But come to think of it, this law at the end of the day might not even protect them.

As Cherian George pointed out, laws like this only serve to deter law-abiding citizens. It cannot stop someone from uploading such a video to YouTube.

So either way, they can’t protect themselves and cover up wrongdoing. Might as well open up and let a hundred films bloom.

.

Internet Content Consultative Committee

I attended the Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform at URA Centre this afternoon. The seminar was kindly sponsored and organised by NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications, together with “Bloggers 13” — the 13 bloggers who submitted the Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore to the MICA Minister exactly two months ago. Special thanks must go to Dr Cherian George, who mooted the idea for this seminar and Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi who put it all together.

I was quite glad that many members of civil society, academia and bloggers turned up to support the event. Also present were Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), and members of the press.

After presentations explaining the proposals, the floor was opened for Q&A.

It seemed that the subject that caught the most interest was our proposal to establish an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3). This is the section of our proposal where we mentioned the IC3:

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

We believe that almost all of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed outside the formal regulatory system. Online communities have already evolved sophisticated norms of informal self-regulation.

Internet forums are almost always moderated; bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.

With the evolution of new technology and social practices of netizens, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. Legislation and state intervention, except in extremis, do not provide the best solution in dealing with the emerging complexities of the Internet.

The Internet is a social space, and social norms of leeway and consideration are constantly shifting. Although we have faith that these norms will evolve in pro-social directions, we agree that this won’t happen without some concerted effort. What is needed is a process through which online communities are represented in Singapore’s search for the right balance between individual freedoms and social goals.

One possible approach is to organise an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). The IC3 would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example offering its view when conflicts arise between the state and content providers alleged to have behaved irresponsibly.

The IC3’s deliberations should be open to public view – and digital technology can be harnessed to this goal. The objective over time is to subject more and more so-called “sensitive” areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state (whether heavy handed or light touch) with people’s own capacities for discernment and judgement. The only viable long term response to the impracticality of internet censorship is to help Singapore mature as a society, online as well as offline.

I think this is something that requires more discussion, and probably another paper fleshing out details of this proposal.

The libertarians amongst my fellow bloggers will question why there is even a need to have an IC3, when what we should be calling for is total freedom on the Internet.

I do not believe that this is practicable. In any community, there are bound to be those who contravine generally accepted rules and codes of conduct. At stake also is the racial and religious harmony of our state, and the protection of minors from undesirable content on the Internet.

I am persuaded that the government will make no move towards acceding to our requests like repealing the Films Act, Section 33 (party political films) and 35 (films contrary to public interest) until every last fuddy duddy there is convinced that the community is able to self-regulate. IC3, therefore, could fill in this gap to allow the government to cede this space to citizens.

A point of debate during our seminar was about who would appoint the IC3. Should it be the government or civil society? At stake is the credibility and sustainability of the IC3.

As a member of the Films Appeal Committee, I am well aware of the strengths and limitations of government-appointed committees.

For the IC3, I feel it would be ideal if it were a citizen-established committee which receives no funding from the government. The members of the committee could include representatives from blogosphere, educators, academics, media, and the government. The chairman of the committee should be elected by fellow members on a regular basis.

There is still much more to discuss regarding this proposal. We would very much want to involve the wider Internet community in this. Suggestions are most welcome!

.