Gerald Giam

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!

Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform, Sat 21 Jun, 2pm

There will be a public forum this Saturday, 21 June 2008, on Internet regulatory reform. Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, it aims to contribute ideas to the government’s ongoing review of Internet regulations. It will discuss the proposals submitted to the government recently by a group of independent bloggers.

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Deputy Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, will provide a bird’s eye view with his opening remarks. Members of the bloggers’ initiative for Internet reform will present the key elements of their proposals, and there will lots of time set aside for questions and open debate.

Says Assistant Professor Cherian George from the Wee Kim Wee School:
“Some of the key issues to be discussed are deeply contentious, even within the blogging community. We don’t expect a consensus at the end of the day, but we can at least aim for a better understanding of the various positions.”

Mr Choo Zheng Xi, an editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen: “Public awareness and discussion are critical. It is important that as many stakeholders as possible are involved in shaping the future of newmedia, and there is no more important stakeholder than every single member of the public.”

Mr Tan Tarn How, a media researcher with the Institute of Policy Studies: “The proposals call for a fundamental reassessment of Singapore’s Internet regulations. Anyone who is concerned about the current regulation regime for new media – its philosophical underpinnings, its enforceability, and its wider effects on society –
ought to give the proposal serious consideration, and the forum is a good occasion for doing it.”

The forum, formally titled “Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform”, will be held at the Function Hall (level 5) of the URA Centre on Maxwell Road, on Saturday 21, June 2008, at 2 p.m.

Admission is free and the event will be open to media reporting.

To reserve a seat, please register by sending an email to:
irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

On opposition politicians

The Straits Times asked for my views of four Singapore opposition politicians. The article appeared in today’s Insight (login required).

This was my full response to ST:

Low Thia Khiang – Sustainable development

Low seems to be approaching opposition politics with the aim of “sustainable development”. Together with Sylvia Lim, he appears to be very slowly but steadily building up a political party that is respected by Singaporeans, avoiding anything (read: lawsuits) that could derail the party. This has made the WP the opposition party with the most broad-based support in Singapore.

Unfortunately the “softly, softly” approach is seen by many as weak and ineffective. He seems to be more content being a “check” (holding the government to account) than a “balance” (coming up with sound alternative policies and visions) to the ruling party.

All this could change if he and Ms Lim commit themselves to recruiting more leaders into their fold. Already, they have managed to assemble a small but solid team around them. But time is not on their side and the expectations of Singaporeans of them are higher than they seem to realise.

Chiam See Tong – Mr Nice Guy

Chiam’s sincerity is his greatest strength. He is probably the most respected of all opposition politicians in Singapore. His residents see that he genuinely cares for their welfare. However, he has in the past surrounded himself with the wrong people who ended up playing him out. With his poor health hindering his effectiveness, it would be sad to see his party take a bow together with him. Unfortunately this is where his party seems to be headed.

J.B. Jeyaretnam – Unappreciated

JBJ is a man who was ahead of his time. Being the first opposition MP since independence, he raised many pertinent issues in Parliament and kept the Government on their toes. Unfortunately, the press failed to report what he said, and he was often painted as harsh critic of the Government and little else. Had he been in Parliament today, he would surely have been much better appreciated, if not by the mainstream media, then by bloggers.

Chee Soon Juan – Rebel who’s lost his cause

Chee is a politician who would be more effective as a political activist. Feel free to quote from my two recent blog posts on Chee:
http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/05/politicians-and-activists-both-have.html
http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/05/chee-should-quit-politics-and-start.html

Obama courting lobbyists

Barack Obama, who claims to reject Washington lobbyists, three days ago addressed the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — probably the most powerful lobby group in the US.

He pledged to “eliminate” the threat of Iran and do everything in his power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He also promised $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade. To a rousing ovation, he declared he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend Israel.

It is certainly a sight to see the future leader of the most powerful nation on earth grovelling at group of lobbyists who represent the narrow interests of a small foreign state.

To be fair to Obama, this is the default position of any American politician who aspires to be elected to high office. John McCain is even more hawkish when it comes to defending Israel and attacking Iran (recall his “Bomb, bomb, Iran” rendition of the Beach Boys’ song).

Fortunately, Obama in his speech signalled his commitment to realising an independent, contiguous Palestinian state at peace with Israel. One could hear a pin drop in the auditorium when he said that. I hope that as president, Obama will honour this commitment.

I support Israel’s right to exist and to defend its borders. But I do not support a US policy that provides unconditional support to Israel while ignoring the plight of Palestinians who are subject to such appalling injustice in their own land.

Myanmar generals lose to Saddam

The Myanmar generals seem pleased with the results of the recent referendum to approve a new constitution which bans Aung San Suu Kyi from standing for elections and reserves one-quarter of the parliamentary seats for the military. This of course means the Constitution will effectively never be amended, since two-thirds majority is needed to change it.

According to ‘official’ results, 92.48 per cent of voters had endorsed the charter, and voter turnout was 98.12 per cent.

98.12 per cent turnout! Wow, General Than Shwe. Your people must really love you. Despite two of your districts being virtually wiped out by Cyclone Nargis, the people there still managed to make it to the polls to vote for you.

Still they lost out to their rival dictator, the late Saddam Hussein. Back in October 2002, just months before the invasion of Iraq, officials there proclaimed that Saddam won 100 per cent backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.

Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform

Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU

“The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open” – Gunter Grass

Are Singaporeans satisfied with the state of Internet regulation as existing?

If not, what changes do we wish to see and how can a bottom-up desire for reform translate into policy review?

Can Singapore afford the political and social costs of free speech? Is there a contradiction between wanting freedom for political speech and controls over social speech? Is technology really in the driver’s seat? Are governments powerless in the face of a global Internet?

Guest speaker:

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Dep. Dir. Institute of Policy Studies

Presentations by members of the Bloggers’ Group for Internet Deregulation

Chaired by Asst Prof Cherian George, Wee Kim Wee School, NTU

—————

Date: Sat, 21 June 2008

Time: 2.00pm to 5.00pm

Venue: URA Centre, Maxwell Road, Function Hall, Level 5

Admission: Free, RSVP required

Media: Open to reporting

To register (RSVP), please send an empty email to :

irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

You will get an email response asking you to confirm your request.

Late notices, if any, will come from the Googlegroup.

Politicians and activists both have a role in S’pore

It appears I have upset a few anonymous readers (presumably SDP supporters or members) for suggesting in my previous post that Chee Soon Juan should concentrate on being a political activist rather than a politician.

My suggestion is not new. I know several other people — none of whom are PAP supporters — who have suggested the same thing.

I believe there are two main ways of engaging in politics in Singapore, and elsewhere: One, by contesting elections; and two, through civil society activism. (The PAP, through the Catherine Lim affair in the 1990s, believes only the first is valid. I strongly disagree.)

Fortunately in Singapore, both avenues are available to citizens. In some countries like China, North Korea and Cuba, only the second method is possible, albeit very difficult. One reader pointed out that Chee and company will never get their application to start a civil activist group approved. For someone who advocates non-violent civil disobedience, this should be the least of his concerns.

To build a democratic society — as we have all pledged to do — Singapore needs both politicians and political activists. Neither is more or less important than the other. In fact, the two often have a symbiotic relationship.

Thus, when I say that Chee should quit politics and start an activist group, I mean him no disrespect. For the reasons explained in my previous post, I believe he will serve Singaporeans better as a non-partisan political activist.

Since Chee likes to compare himself with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, he would be aware that neither of these men was a politician, nor did they have plans to become one. They were above partisan politics.

I have seen Chee speak on several occasions, and I know he is not the crazy person that most Singaporeans think he is (probably stemming from the way the media paints him to be). I agree with many of his beliefs on freedom, democracy and human rights. Unfortunately, unless these ideals are translated to dollars and cents for “pragmatic” Singaporeans who make up the majority of the electorate, he will make no headway at the polls.

Having said that, there is a great and pressing need for more political education in Singapore. Most Singaporeans are not aware of their civil and political rights. They don’t know where the law stands on issues. I frequently get asked by well-meaning friends: “Won’t you get in trouble for criticizing the government on your blog?” I also know of ex-colleagues in the Civil Service who think civil servants and NTUC members must vote for the PAP during elections. (That is not true, by the way.)

Chee and his colleagues could help fill this gap. In fact, they are already doing this quite well. The One Nation Under Lee film which they supported (or some believe, made) is an excellent example. That film chronicles all the strong arm tactics used by Lee Kuan Yew to suppress dissent in Singapore during and after his reign. These are important historical issues that every Singaporean, regardless of political affiliation, should at least be aware of.

It would be much less distracting if Chee didn’t appear to be doing that to win votes at the polls.

Loser generals

From the wires:

Myanmar junta distributes foreign aid – with generals’ names on it

YANGON (Myanmar) – MYANMAR’S military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid even though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a US cargo plane bring in supplies on Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals – including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe – handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt Gen Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: ‘Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand.’

‘We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was gift from them and then distributing it in their region,’ said Mr Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

‘It is not going to areas where it is most in need,’ he said in London.

What a bunch of sad losers these idiotic generals are. Now we know why they are holding up aid agencies’ access to their suffering people — they are too busy pasting their stupid names on the boxes.

Crisis of leadership in S’pore

Mr Viswa Sadasivan, CEO of communications training and consultancy Strategic Moves and renowned social commentator, recently gave a talk where he shared his views about politics in Singapore.

True to his style, Mr Viswa’s off-the-cuff presentation was peppered with witty anecdotes, incisive observations and a strong sense of conviction about what Singapore needs to change in order to reach the next level of development and progress.

* * * * *

Salient points from speech by Mr Viswa Sadasivan

We Singaporeans are often exhorted by our political leaders to take ownership, be innovative and think out-of-the-box. But the term “think out-of-the-box” is much abused, as oftentimes we step out of the box into a larger box.

One of the key challenges we are facing increasingly is a crisis of leadership. While we have no shortage of good managers — people who are pre-occupied with and are able to get things done right – we don’t have enough leaders, people who want to do the right thing, and who have the conviction and wherewithal to do it.

It is not clear whether this “crisis” is a result of us simply not having people with leadership qualities, or is it because such people are not willing to step forward because of a host of reasons which could include cynicism and apathy. It probably is a combination of both.

Consider how few people have the courage to disagree with strong personalities such as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Is it because there aren’t enough things that matter enough, or because we are afraid of getting a robust response or being rapped in the knuckles? Will there ever come a day when we do not need MM Lee to step in to help carry the ground when Singapore makes fundamental policy shifts?

Accountability and the media

An increasingly sophisticated, exposed populace demands a greater level of accountability – and it has to be seen to be so. The media is opening up, but often it looks like it is taking one step forward and two steps back. Certainly, the pace at which the media is opening up is lagging behind the pace the people expect of it. This consequential erosion of media credibility – especially in reporting on local issues – is unhealthy. If uncorrected, in a crisis the government will not have an effective vehicle through which it can convey critical messages. This is especially so in the increasingly porous new media environment.

For example, in the wake of the Temasek-Shin Corp saga, the local media remained largely silent. The more it was silent, the more credence was given to the many conspiracy theories that were spreading fast and furious. Singaporeans wanted to hear from the establishment about what really happened. But this hardly came. As a result, the only source of information, by default, ended up being the likes of foreign newspapers such as the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) that provided commentary and analysis on the issue, which, needless to say, were not favourable to Singapore.

Another example is the Mas Selamat Kastari escape incident. From a public relations and communications perspective, it was a disaster and crisis of national proportions. Yet there weren’t enough statements by our political leaders – statements that could actually have helped turned the crisis into an opportunity to bring the people together, as was the case in the way we managed the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis.

Qualities of leadership

Leadership can be defined as having the confidence to stand up and make assertions on issues that matter, which in turn will inspire your audience to buy into your belief. To do this, a leader needs to have clarity of thought and the courage to move out of his or her comfort zone, when necessary.

Leaders need to have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. These qualities don’t seem to be apparent in our society. This is worrying.

The difference between what is expected of a political leader and a senior civil servant is that the latter helps to formulate policies, while the former assesses the soundness of the proposed policies, their long-term implications, and then goes out to convince people to believe in them. While we have good people with credibility and integrity in cabinet, not enough of them appear to have the acumen to explain them clearly and simply, and persuade the ground. This is a key quality of leadership, which in turn is a tacit balance of IQ, and EQ – an intrinsic capacity to listen.

Pragmatism, a cornerstone of Singapore’s approach to governance, affords us the flexibility to move with the tide and not be constrained by ideologies. This has worked pretty well for Singapore, especially economically. But going forward, especially with so many distractions and conflicting signals and priorities, it is imperative that the government and we as a people be clearer about our anchor values and things we stand for, especially on issues of meritocracy, equality, homosexuality and race and religion. This is what will determine our moral compass as a society. It is something we need to give to our young.

Political participation

Most of our leaders appear to be of the same ilk — possessing strong academic and work credentials, with a very cautious approach to almost anything. You wish there would be more occasions for spontaneous remarks. Some of those who were considered non-conformists in their pre-government days appear to become thoroughly assimilated within a matter of months of assuming office. Yes, this might be perception and not truth– but perceptions do matter, as that is what determines the votes at the polls.

Singapore needs alternatives – in thought and action – to better cater to the proliferation of niche perspectives and interests, and these alternatives must be authentic.

Some years back, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong remarked that Singapore does not need political opposition. A pertinent analogy in response would be that of an athlete who has won the gold medal in the Olympics. His next goal would be not just to retain his gold, but to beat his own record. However, is it possible for him to better his performance without having worthy competitors to pace him?

So why have so few good people stepped forward to join the Opposition?

Firstly, our citizenry today are products of decades of depoliticisation, with little propensity to enter politics, much less opposition politics.

Secondly, the “fear factor” and a keen awareness of the fate that has befallen quite a few who have campaigned under the opposition banner over the years has had a chilling effect on the people. Those who still choose to enter opposition politics despite these considerations either have nothing much to lose, or are persons of great moral courage and deep conviction who deserve our respect.

Even the PAP faces similar challenges in recruiting good people. It would appear that a number of people who were approached to join the party declined because they felt they would not fit in. Some I spoke to even expressed concern of losing the respect of their peers if they stood for elections under the PAP banner. This is not a healthy sign and the ruling party needs to ask themselves why is such a feeling amongst some of the more credible, accomplished potential political leaders.

It would be not just in the PAP’s interest but in the best interest of Singapore to repoliticise the ground, and find an effective, sustainable antidote to the antipathy towards political participation.

* * * * *

This was first published on The Online Citizen, with Mr Viswa’s permission.

Appeal for help for Myanmar

The reclusive Myanmar authorities are slowly revealing the horrifying extent of the destruction caused by the Tropical Cyclone Nargis, which hit the country over the weekend.

The latest reports were that 22,500 Myanmarese people have perished, with 10,000 dead in one city alone. 41,000 others are still missing and at least 25,000 homes have been lost.

Relief organisation World Vision estimates that over 2 million people have been hit by the effects of the cyclone. James Tumbuan, World Vision’s National Director in Yangon said, “Yangon totally collapsed. Getting drinking water is a real problem.”

Tumbuan said thousands of people are now camped in government schools in and around Yangon.

The Singapore Government has pledged US$200,000 for relief efforts in Myanmar.

I’m sure much more will be needed. I’d encourage those of us with the means to help out too. In these situations, the best way to help is to donate money to reputable aid organisations who are able to reach the victims, both during the immediate aftermath as well as during the reconstruction phases.

World Vision is one such charity which I regularly donate to. Donations can be made via credit card, Internet banking or cheque. Please click here for more details.