new media

Bloggers do not advocate "near free-for-all"

This was a letter sent by Choo Zhengxi to the Straits Times in response to an article about the so-called “Bloggers 13”. We were not granted the right of reply.

Your article in “‘Bloggers 13’ want near free-for-all” (Straits Times, Sept 4) misrepresented our group’s response to the discussion paper of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).

Contrary to the article’s headline, we do not advocate a near “free for all”. Indeed, the very first paragraph of our April 2008 report explicitly cautions against caricaturing any side as wanting a “free-for-all”, adding: “The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

The report also claimed we were “ignoring” AIMS’ proposals except in relation to changes to the laws on political content online. In fact, our 20-page proposal to MICA in April encompassed a broad spectrum of cyberspace related issues including a suggestion for the formation of a community moderation mechanism called IC3 to deal with controversial online speech including extreme racial and religious views. The proposed IC3 is to be made up of content providers,
internet technology users, and internet content consumers. This was discussed at a public seminar we held on 21 June 2008, which was attended by the chairman of AIMS, Mr Cheong Yip Seng.

However, we make no apologies for concerning ourselves largely with political control of the Internet in our recent press statement. We find it curious that ST considers our silence on some parts of the AIMS report to be more worthy of reportage than what we actually do
say. The effect, once again, is to caricature rather than inform.

It is unfortunate that the caricaturing we warned of in our proposal is practiced by a national newspaper. The report in Today was, in contrast, considerably more nuanced and reflective of our position. It is a pity that the Straits Times, despite being the larger and ostensibly more serious newspaper, seemed less patient with details on this occasion.

The full text of our response to AIMS can be found at www.journalism.sg and elsewhere on the web. The blogger deregulation group will continue to elaborate on our community moderation proposal for submission to MICA.

.
.

e-Engagement – A paradigm shift needed

Below is the transcript of my email interview with the Straits Times’ Zakir Hussain. The article appeared in Straits Times Insight today, “Engagement in progress“.

———————-

Straits Times (ST): Aims suggests the Government should take part in online discussions and post comments on blogs, train civil servants how to respond to online comments, find ways to show people online that feedback is taken seriously, and set up a youth panel to consult on new media trends, among others. Would we be able to get your thoughts on some of these recommendations, and on a few other questions?

ST: The Aims committee has recommended that the Government launch an e-engagement drive. But it also conceded that while governments worldwide have been experimenting with various forms of e-engagement, there’s been no perfect model. What sort of e-engagement model should the Singapore Government be looking at? What should the point of e-engagement be?

Gerald (GG): There needs to be a paradigm shift in the government’s thinking with regards to e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into building it’s own online platforms (eg, Reach), where it tends to only preach to the choir, it should venture out to engaging the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf.

The point of e-engagement should be (1) to help citizens understand policies or proposed policies, (2) gather feedback on its policies, and (3) present a softer, more personal touch to governance.

The government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Popular socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media. This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

Ministers and senior officials should not be reticient in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

ST: Are you in favour of the Government getting involved in online conversations by responding to forum posts, or engaging online voices by responding to blog posts? Or would you find this intrusive?

GG: Yes, but I think the government needs to still be selective about which areas it ventures into.

The vast majority of bloggers who don’t blog about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog rantings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a strong rebuttal. The response could be a comment on a blog, or a full reply to an article posted online. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the government or any other party.

It would be better if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities, meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian world where the quality of your ideas counts more than the titles you carry.

Civil servants should be allowed to comment online on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on a matter that does not directly concern their ministry.

The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. It would be nice if the government could at least acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

ST: What are the potential pitfalls of e-engagement?

GG: I can’t think of any.

ST: What are the plus points?

GG: See answer to (1).

ST: An oft-heard comment about the online world is that it fosters intelligent arguments but also the circulation of half-truths. Will e-engagement cause online comments to become more ‘responsible’?

GG: This “oft-heard” comment is itself a half-truth. The vast majority of material put out online are what the bloggers themselves believe to be true, or are their personal opinions. The few “untruths” are in fact satire that no one takes seriously outside of its comic value.

Yes, I believe e-engagement if done selectively will cause people to be a bit more circumspect in posting their comments. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that people become much more polite when they know you are listening.

ST: E-engagement can also flow in the other direction – from citizenry to government. (www.mysociety.org from the UK is an example) What initiatives can there be from the citizenry? How might they encourage/induce government to join the conversation they initiate? Where do you see sites like TOC fitting in this?

GG: I think there is a whole lot more that Singaporeans can do with the freedoms we already have. We need to rid ourselves of our “government must initiate” mentality. If we have a passion for something and see a gap that others (including the government) is not filling, then we should step forward, organise ourselves and get something moving.

One sector that is well placed to “self-organise” is the NGO sector, which includes charities and non-profit organisations championing various disadvantaged groups and causes. Many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) are very close to the ground and can see first hand the social problems in our society. Unfortunately, VWOs in Singapore seldom play an advocacy role, but are content working quietly behind the scenes. If more of them were organise themselves, rally public interest around their causes, we could see a transformation of the government-NGO-citizen relationship, a more engaged citizenry and a much more responsive government.

New media and politics on CNA

I was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia’s Zainudin Afandi for a story on the increasing importance of the new media such as blogs and the Internet as a form of political expression in Singapore.

The programme, Insight, will air on Thursday 21 Aug at 8.31pm on CNA. I’m told other interviewees include Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim and Foreign Minister George Yeo. Do tune in if you’re interested.

In the meantime, do check out an article I wrote for Opinion Asia, Untangling Singapore’s web of Politics.

Bloggers to call for bold changes to new media regulation

I have been working with a group of fellow bloggers which will be submitting recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.

Its key proposals include:

1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.

2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.

3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.

4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.

5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.

6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.

7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up 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). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.

8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.

The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.

PM Lee speaks about the Internet bogeyman

In an interview with Chinese language daily Lianhe Zaobao on Sunday, PM Lee delved into the topic of new media.

THE new media is changing rapidly and Singapore’s laws must evolve to keep up, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.

But any loosening up will be done carefully.

Otherwise, misinformation and extremist views could proliferate.

Politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online, he warned.

But the status quo is not an option either.

‘Some have said that ‘one year in the new media is equal to seven years in the world outside’,’ he said.

‘So in one term of the Government, there will be five years of changes in the new media, which is equal to more than 30 years in the real world. It is a whole new world.

‘Thus, it is necessary for us to update the rules to adapt to the demands of the new era. We will examine whether we should relax part of the rules but this issue will be handled cautiously to prevent a negative impact.‘

Current laws disallow the making and distributing of party political films.

During campaign season, political parties are not allowed to put audio or video-casts on their websites.

Mr Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

‘If a party needs money, many people are willing to donate, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to ‘collect their dues’,’ he said.

– excerpts from The Straits Times, 14 April 2008

I am getting rather worried by the remarks by PM Lee about changing new media laws. It appears that some change is on the cards, but it won’t be nearly as drastic as many Singaporeans are hoping for.

For a start, it’s interesting that PM Lee chose to reveal his thoughts on new media to a Chinese language newspaper, instead of the Straits Times or TODAY. The Chinese press tends to be read more by older and/or lower-income Chinese Singaporeans, who are the least frequent users of the Internet and the most concerned about religious extremism. This makes fertile ground to sow fear about the dangers of the Internet.

PM Lee said that if the loosening up was done too fast, “misinformation and extremist views could proliferate”. But since the declaration of MICA’s “light-touch” approach to regulating the Internet, have we seen this happen? I don’t think so. What we have seen is a tremendous improvement in the level of political debate in this country.

He warned that “politics might also become tainted by graft if parties have to spend large sums to campaign online”.

Current election laws already prevent candidates from spending more than I believe $3 per voter. Thus the mechanism is already in place to prevent lobby money from dominating the political scene here. In fact, the current opposition parties spend far less than what they are allowed to, and much less than the PAP. Even if online campaigning were allowed, this limit will still remain.

In fact, putting up a website is much, much cheaper than printing brochures and sign-boards.

Again, PM Lee warned that Singapore would suffer if elections came to be fought through expensive online films and advertisements.

This contradicts an earlier statement by George Yeo, the Minister for Information and the Arts when “party political films” were outlawed here.

Mr Yeo had said on Channel NewsAsia on 9 January 2007 that the government at that time “did not reckon this new media which allows you to produce the programmes quite cheaply”, and felt that the government has “got to adjust that position (of banning party political films)”.

Finally, PM Lee said many people are willing to donate to a party, but these political contributions never come with no strings attached. After you win and come into power, the donors will turn up politely to ‘collect their dues’.

Our political donations laws are one of the most stringent in the world. None of that is about to change. The only thing that might change is that opposition parties might find it easier to raise money on the Internet, just like Malaysia’s Jeff Ooi and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The bottom line in all these arguments: Whatever is not advantageous to the PAP, we will continue to ban.

————

Update: A group of bloggers, including myself, will be submitting a paper to the Government, detailing the changes we would like to see made to our laws and regulations of the Internet. This paper is into its final revisions and will be out in a matter of days rather than weeks. Stay tuned for more information on The Bloggers’ Feedback to the Government.

.
.

Big brother policing Facebook

Straits Times Forum, 5 Dec 07

Police security checks conducted judiciously

I REFER to the letter from Mr Leow Zi Xiang, ‘Reader sees red over police reply’ (ST, Nov 28).

Police would like to assure the public that we conduct our security checks judiciously. During the Asean Summit, police conducted checks on about 140 persons seeking to enter the protected area around Shangri-La Hotel. Only about 20 were advised to leave. These decisions to check, advise or remove persons from the gazetted area were not made arbitrarily, but after careful appreciation of the situation.

According to our officer who first spotted him, Mr Leow was wearing a red football jersey, in the company of people wearing red T-shirts, the chosen colour of the Asean Summit protesters.

When he subsequently approached the protected area, the officer questioned him on his purpose in doing so. He said he was there for a walk but could not say where he was heading to. He insisted that he had a right to go wherever he wanted and was not able to give a satisfactory account of his presence there.

Mr Leow was then advised not to proceed further into the protected area. After he entered the area, he was turned away by police officers.

In his letter, Mr Leow asserts that police had impugned his integrity and suggested that he had not been completely honest in his account of events. He had portrayed himself as an innocent passer-by whom police had turned away just because he happened to be wearing a red football jersey.

However, the following fact showed otherwise. After Mr Leow’s letter was published, police were alerted by Internet users to the fact that he had declared openly on his Facebook page his intention to participate in an anti-Myanmar protest at the Shangri-La Hotel on Nov 19. The posting was accessible to all Facebook users.

Police will leave it to readers to come to their own conclusion about Mr Leow’s protest of innocence.

Audrey Ang (Ms)
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

This is indeed a worrying admission: That the police are monitoring even the semi-private domain of Facebook. They cloaked it by writing that they were “alerted by Internet users” (read: we didn’t do it ourselves).

But how was this posting “accessible to all Facebook users”? It is (to my knowledge) not possible to see which “groups” a person is subscribed to unless you are his/her “friend”. I did a search on this guy, and it did show up a profile, but I can only send him a message, poke him, view his friends and add him as my friend.

Response to Straits Times’ questions for article "Internet users learning netiquette the hard way"

Last Friday (July 20), the Straits Times contacted me to ask for my views for their article, “Internet users learning netiquette the hard way” (ST, July 25). The following are the questions and my responses.

Straits Times (ST): I see that you have put your name down on the blog and not shy behind annonymity (sic). But when you blog, are you consciously aware that there are people reading you? If so, do you hold back on talking about certain topics or word your arguments carefully?

Gerald (GG): Yes, I am aware that many people in Singapore and in other countries read my articles (which I write for not just my own blog but other online publications like TheOnlineCitizen.com and OhmyNews International as well). I take a very considered approach to my articles. I do not write things that could be deemed illegal in Singapore. For example, I refrain from making ad hominem attacks on people, and I am careful not to reveal any official secrets (which I might have learned during my NS or when I was a foreign service officer in MFA). However, I do not hold back criticism when I feel criticism is due. For example, I wrote a series of articles last year arguing against the latest GST hike in Singapore. (See the articles here, here, here and here.) But even when I criticise, I try to focus on the issue rather than the person(s). Where possible, I also try to present alternative solutions, although I don’t believe that all criticism needs to be accompanied by solutions.

ST: What do you think of the Wee Shu Min case? I’m thinking if she said it quietly to her friends, nothing would have happened. In this case, it was the Internet, a public area where people read and take notice of what you say, that blew the issue up. Its abit like racism, isn’t it? One can be racist among racist and nobody would take notice. But broadcast it, combined with the fact that one is a public figure, or related to one, and that person can be in big trouble. Would you agree?

GG: The dismissive and arrogant tone of her online rant was interpreted by many Singaporeans as being reflective of the disconnect that some of our “elite” have from mainstream society. I do not agree that one can say nasty or racist things about others in private, but not in public. Sooner or later, one will be held to account. For example, your friends might hear what you mutter in private, and decide to broadcast your words on their blog. But I do agree that public figures (and their relatives) need to be aware that their words carry more weight than that of the ordinary man on the street.

ST: The spread of information over the net is also stupendous. Immediately almost. Do you take care in verifying information before writing or blogging about it?

GG: Yes, I never publish anything without verifying the facts. I see that as my responsibility as a citizen journalist. There is a lot of information on the Net, but it is not as difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as many “blogophobes” like to make it out to be. Adults should have no problem telling apart a false and misleading website from a genuine one. I think schools and parents have a responsibility to inculcate some media literacy in our young, rather than try to shield them from the Net. But I feel the mainstream media and some of our politicians do bloggers a disservice when they keep perpetuating the myth that blogosphere (and the Internet in general) is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” (see this article of mine). I think Singaporean bloggers in general are very responsible citizen journalists.

(Verbal question over a subsequent phone call by the journalist. May not be verbatim.)

ST: Have you ever gotten yourself in trouble because of something you blogged about?

GG: No, I am always very careful about what I blog about.

(Another verbal question)

ST: Do you know anyone who has gotten himself or herself in trouble because of their blog? We are writing an article highlighting some recent incidents where people got burnt because of comments they published on their blogs.

GG: I am in touch with a number of fellow bloggers and I am not aware of any of them who have gotten in trouble because of their blog. I don’t think this is a very a big issue in Singapore.

Afterthoughts:

I’m aware that several other social-political bloggers were also approached by the ST for this article. It seems the questions asked were almost identical. Dansong has published his responses on Singapore Angle. I notice only quotes from university professors and MPs made the final cut. Oh well… :)

What I was actually uncomfortable with was the slant of the article from the outset. It was obvious from the questions that the ST was trying to frame the article in terms of “Singapore bloggers are an irresponsible lot and the nonsense they write always gets them in trouble”.

Is this another example of how the mainstream media is trying to make the new media look like an amateurish and unreliable source of information?

PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore

Army Second Lieutenant (2LT) Li Hongyi’s June 28 email complaint sent to all the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) head honchos has caused ripples on the Internet for the past two weeks. Much mud has been slung at 2LT Li for his brash act.

“Who does he think he is anyway? He thought he could go to Uncle Chee Hean and complain,” said one of my friends. (Teo Chee Hean is Singapore’s Minister for Defence.)

A “blatant abuse of family ties,” cried another blogger.

As it turns out, the son of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did end up getting formally charged and was administered a reprimand after a summary trial by the military for not adhering to the chain of command when making his complaint.

This incident has also made its way to the international news wires, with Reuters having reported it this morning. Despite all the brickbats that Li Hongyi, Mindef and the “Elite Establishment” are receiving over this incident, I feel that the way this saga has played out is actually quite heartening for Singapore.

White Horses not immune from punishment

Firstly, the fact that the son of the prime minister got charged for contravening a relatively minor military General Order shows that not even a “white horse” (the son of a VIP) is immune from punishment for wrongdoing. I say “relatively minor” because 2LT Li’s misdemeanour was his overzealousness in reporting an offence.

He was not derelict in his duties as a soldier, nor did he cause any injury to anyone. Furthermore, he sent his email only to fellow servicemen within the Mindef Intranet, and not to anyone outside Mindef.

Nevertheless, he was wrong to have emailed the Minister for Defence, the Chief of Defence Force, the Chief of Army and so many other servicemen (possibly hundreds, based on the distribution lists in his carbon copy list). There are many more senior officers in the chain of command above his Officer Commanding (OC) that he could have reported this incident to.

Public spiritedness

Secondly, after reading 2LT Li’s email, one can discern that it wasn’t just some immature rant against the army (like so many of us, myself included, like to write). It was a detailed account of what is wrong with the system of enforcing discipline in his army unit. It demonstrates that this young man was intent on setting things right before he disrupted his service for overseas studies.

Our views of government ministers’ children are probably coloured by Wee Shu Min (pictured left), the daughter of a PAP MP who wrote a very haughty blog last year. 2LT Li’s email is different. It shows a degree of public spiritedness that is sorely lacking in most of our young Singaporeans nowadays.

Complaint taken seriously by Mindef

Thirdly, Mindef took this complaint seriously. The lieutenant that 2LT Li complained about will be court martialled soon and will probably be sentenced to Detention Barracks (DB) for a couple of days. The lieutenant’s superiors were also issued warning letters for not meting out harsh enough punishment when the infraction was first reported to them.

Critics would say that Mindef took action only because the son of the PM made this complaint. If this was the case, why didn’t 2LT Li’s OC and Commanding Officer take appropriate action when he first reported it?

Mainstream media, New Media

Fourthly, 2LT Li’s wrongdoing was not exactly covered up because of his status as the son of the PM. Even before the mainstream media reports came out today, and the chatter on the Net took off a week earlier, the Commanding Officer of 2LT Li’s unit had given a speech to the entire unit the next day (presumably the day after he wrote the letter) about “following the chain of command”.

That in many ways amounted to a public, albeit informal rebuke. Today’s mainstream media’s reports about 2LT Li’s punishment (complete with pictures of the young officer) all signal a gradual relaxing of the Singapore media’s unofficial policy of self-censorship to avoid embarrassment to senior government officials.

It is unclear whether 2LT Li’s charge was issued before or after the news got leaked on the Net. It appears that his email only got circulated widely on the Net late on Thursday, 12 July.

But given that he committed his offence on June 28, and Mindef announced to the press less than two weeks later (on July 12) that he had already been charged at a summary trial, indicates that relative quick action was taken against this offender.

Lastly, there is no doubt that the new media helped to highlight this matter to the public. There would be no Straits
Times or Channel NewsAsia report, nor would Mindef have issued a statement, if not for the fact that this was already a widely discussed issue on the Net.

It is heartening to note that the new media is fast becoming an effective watchdog on the powers-that-be in Singapore.

———

This article was first contributed to The Online Citizen

Now S’pore copies M’sia: Bans another film

It seems that the Singaporean and Malaysian governments have taken on a whole new meaning to “bilateral cooperation” by aping each others’ moves in banning political films.

Just 3 weeks ago, the Malaysian government turned down the appeal by filmmaker Amir Muhammad against the ban on his film about Malay communists, Apa Khabar Orang Kampung (The Village People Road Show). The Malaysian government cited, among other things, that the film “blatantly” criticises the Malaysian government and it “shows the opinions and stories only of the communists”. This came barely a year after the Malaysian Home Affairs Ministry banned the film, Lelaki Komunis Terahkir (The Last Communist), a film about former Malayan Communist Party chief Chin Peng, under their Film Censorship Act. Interestingly, that film was passed without any cuts by the National Film Censorship board in March 2006 but the Home Ministry retracted the approval ten days before film was scheduled to start screening.

In an almost copycat move, the Singapore Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) has just banned local filmmaker Martyn See’s film, Zahari’s 17 Years. The scenarios couldn’t have been more similar. See’s film was about a former Malay newspaper journalist and opposition party president’s arrest and detention under the Internal Security Act on suspicion of “involvement in communist united front activities against the interest of Singapore”.

It is surprisingly coincidental that, just as in the case in Malaysia, See’s film was passed by the Board of Film Censors as “PG” for the Singapore International Film Festival, and now MICA has decided to backtrack and ban the film 3 weeks after the Malaysians banned Amir Muhammad’s film. The reason given by MICA is that it will “undermine public confidence in the Government”. The full text of MICA’s statement can be found on its press release yesterday.

While I hold no sympathy for the communist cause, I believe these alleged communists have served their time in jail (albeit without the benefit of an open trial) and they have lost their war. The harsh actions of the Government back then could in some ways be justified as we were facing an almost insurmountable threat to our nation’s security and survival. But now that the war on communism is over, the truth should be allowed to surface — including the stories from the other side of the fence. It is in the interest of Singapore that young Singaporeans be educated on what went on during those turbulent times in our nation’s history, and arrive at their own judgments.

To ban or not to ban

The Government’s moves and statements on political films appear to be inconsistent at best. In 2005, Martyn See was hauled up by the police for making a documentary about democracy activist Chee Soon Juan, Singapore Rebel. The film was banned on the basis that it was a “party political film” in contravention of the Films Act (Section 33). In an interview with Time magazine in December that year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in reference to Singapore Rebel: “Well, if you had asked me, I would have said, to hell with it. But the censor, the enforcer, he will continue until he is told the law has changed. And it will change…”. Not surprisingly, eight months later, the police completed their investigations on See and let him off with just a “stern warning”.

In January this year, in an interview on Channel NewsAsia’s BlogTV, Foreign Minister George Yeo, in response to a question by blogger Gayle Goh, said that he was “responsible for that peace of legislation” when he was Information Minister not to allow political videos and films. He said, “We did not want politics in Singapore to be trivialised and so commercial where it all depends on packaging and how much money you are able to put into producing a programme. So we decided keep it simple, keep it cheap.” However, he added that the Government “did not reckon this new media (the Internet) which allows you to produce the programmes quite cheaply. So I think we’ve got to adjust that position.” (Emphasis mine.)

Almost a year-and-a-half has passed since MM Lee’s “to hell with it” remarks and four months since George Yeo’s comment that “we’ve got to adjust that position” on political films. Yet there is still no news from MICA that the Section 33 of the Films Act will be repealed. Instead, this time MICA banned Zahari’s 17 Years using a different section of the Films Act — Section 35 (1) — for the first time. This section of the Act allows the MICA Minister to prohibit the possession or distribution of any film contrary to public interest. With effect from tomorrow, anyone who possesses or distributes the film could be fined up to $10,000 or jailed for a maximum of two years, or both. This sets an unsettling precedent on how MICA intends to regulate political films, even if Section 33 is repealed.

Will “Light touch” still hold?

Martyn See has said he will upload his film onto YouTube if the ban remains. It is unclear whether the government will act against citizens who view the film on YouTube. Does viewing YouTube video streams count as being “in possession” of the film, and will Martyn See be charged for “distribution” of the film? After all, YouTube clips cannot be saved on one’s hard disks, and lawyers might be able to argue over whether the act of uploading a film on YouTube counts as “distribution”, when in effect it is YouTube which is distributing the film via its website. In any case, just like See’s other film, Singapore Rebel, any one of his hundreds of fans overseas can easily upload their copy of the film onto YouTube, and there’s nothing the Government can do about it.

My hunch is that it is unlikely that the Government will want to follow the Thai government in banning YouTube or take any action against people who watch the YouTube clip (if it does get uploaded) in the privacy of their own homes, in light of their pledge to regulate the Internet with a “light touch”. But given the nature of Singapore’s legislation on the media, whereby “the Minister” is given wide-ranging discretionary powers to ban films, it could go either way.

****************************************************************

From TODAY, 11 April 2007

Film on ex-detainee banned

It may undermine public’s confidence in Govt: Mica

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

A FILM about a former journalist detained under the Internal Security Act has been deemed “against public interest” and banned by the Government.

Shot, directed and edited by local film-maker Martyn See, the 50-minute interview-based film, Zahari’s 17 years, centres around the February 1963 arrest and subsequent detention of Mr Said Zahari, a former editor of the Malay-language newspaper Utusan Melayu and president of Parti Rakyat Singapura. Mr Said, then 34, was arrested during Operation Cold Store — a Government security operation against subversive activities — and released in August 1979.

In a statement yesterday, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) said the film gives “a distorted and misleading portrayal” of Mr Said’s arrest and detention and was “an attempt (by Mr Said) to exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist united front activities against the interest of Singapore”.

The ministry said Mr See had submitted the film to the Board of Film Censors for classification for screening.

Explaining its decision to use, for the first time, section 35 (1) of the Films Act, Mica added: “The Government will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past, to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the Government. This could undermine public confidence in the Government.”

Section 35 (1) allows the Mica Minister to prohibit the possession or distribution of any film contrary to public interest. With effect from tomorrow, anyone who possesses or distributes the film could be fined up to $10,000 or jailed for a maximum of two years, or both.

When contacted, Mr See, 38, said he found the decision “very strange”.

He said: “I had wanted to screen the film here, but I haven’t decided when and where yet … I need to find out on what basis they are banning it.”

This is the second time in as many years that a film which Mr See had directed has run afoul of the Films Act, which prohibits films with political themes. Last year, after 15 months of investigation, the police gave him a “stern warning” over his documentary about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, which was banned under a different section of the Films Act.

Last year, Zahari’s 17 years was submitted for the Singapore International Film Festival. At that time, the Board of Film Censors passed the film with a PG rating — traditionally, films at the festival attract a smaller audience than at a general release. But despite the rating, the festival organisers decided not to screen the movie. It has, however, been shown at film festivals in Malaysia and Toronto.

“(The Board of Film Censors) has to explain why they had passed it under “PG” in the first place. If I’m not satisfied with the explanation, I will have to put it up on YouTube,” Mr See said.

The politics of Singapore’s new media in 2006

This is an article I contributed to The Online Citizen.

The year 2006 was a landmark year for the new media and citizen journalism in Singapore. The government’s “light touch” approach to regulating the Internet was probably one of the factors that emboldened many Singaporeans to step up and push the political boundaries through their blogs, podcasts (online sound clips) and vodcasts (online video clips). There were too many developments in the new media in Singapore in the past year to capture in one article. Nevertheless, this piece will highlight just a few of the more significant happenings in Singapore fuelled by this phenomenon.

Election podcasting and vodcasting

In the weeks leading up to the General Election in May, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan announced a ban on “explicitly political” podcasting and vodcasting during the hustings. This move was ostensibly in response to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s plans to circumvent the government-controlled mainstream media by reaching out to the electorate using sound and video clips on its website. After the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) informed political parties of this regulation, the parties had no choice but to comply. The SDP reluctantly removed the podcasts from their website, but not without protest.

However, this did not stop some Netizens from publishing videos of numerous election rallies on their blogs. Almost all of the videos, which people had recorded using their mobile phone camcorders and submitted to the blogs, were of Opposition rallies, notably that of the Workers’ Party (WP). The blog owners did make several attempts to ask for People’s Action Party (PAP) videos but there were few takers.

Some wondered why the government did not crack down on these websites. The likely reason was that the government felt assured that due to the lack of knowledge about these websites among the general populace, they would have been unlikely to swing the votes by much. This assurance was probably strengthened when a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) revealed that only 33 per cent of Singaporeans — mostly young adults — said that the Internet was important to shaping their voting decisions.

The rise of mrbrown

Singapore’s most well-known blogger, mrbrown, shot to fame during the elections with his riotously funny “bak chor mee” podcast. This was part of a series of “persistently non-political” podcasts (a play on the government’s phase “explicitly political”). This podcast recorded an argument between a bak chor mee man (a food vendor) and his customer over a botched order. It implicitly poked fun at the PAP’s demonising of WP candidate James Gomez for his blunder of not submitting his election forms properly and initially blaming it on an Elections Department official.

mrbrown’s next podcast about the impact of grades and exams in Singapore was equally funny. In this clip, two schoolchildren who were comparing exam grades and debating whether one student’s score of 66.6 per cent was “a very good score”, as their teacher had told her. The mainstream media had trumpeted the PAP’s 66.6 per cent win as a resounding mandate. The clip went on to lampoon other politicians both from the PAP and the Opposition.

During his National Day Rally speech, PM Lee misquoted the character in mrbrown’s “bak chor mee” podcast as saying “mee siam mai hum”. Many Singaporeans caught the error immediately, as the popular Malay dish mee siam never contains hum (cockles). PM Lee’s press secretary later clarified that he had meant to say, “laksa mai hum”. This didn’t stop mrbrown from recording another funny podcast titled, “A harmless podcast”, which contained a catchy jingle of PM Lee’s gaffe. The jingle was widely downloaded and circulated, with some people even converting it into a mobile phone ring tone. In keeping with their “light touch” commitment to the new media, there was no response from the government, even though some officials were said to have taken offence at that irreverent mockery.

Unfortunately, despite (or perhaps, because of) mrbrown’s popularity, he found himself targeted for crossing the proverbial “out-of-bounds” (OB) markers. In a column he wrote for TODAY newspaper on 30 June, mrbrown criticised the government, albeit in a light-hearted manner, for its price increases following the Elections. The article, “S’poreans fed up with progress”, drew a scathing response from MICA, which it said “distort(ed) the truth”. To the dismay of many Singaporeans, MICA accused mrbrown of being a “partisan player” in politics and declared that “it is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government”. The government’s sore point appeared to be that his opinions were circulated in a mainstream newspaper rather than on his blog, which has a much narrower and more limited audience.

TODAY promptly sacked mrbrown, despite howls of protests from Netizens, some of whom turned up at City Hall mrt station wearing brown tee shirts in a show of support for mrbrown and protest at his dismissal from TODAY.”Thankfully, no further action was taken against mrbrown and his podcasts continued to draw more and more listeners every week.

Talking Cock in Parliament

The event Talking Cock in Parliament was publicised almost entirely through “viral marketing” on the Internet. It was a stand-up comedy held at the Old Parliament House on 24 August. Most of the performances were captured and made available on YouTube and other websites. The most memorable performances were probably that of Ruby Pan and Hossan Leong. Ruby Pan had her audience rolling in laughter as she demonstrated the different English accents used in Singapore to illustrate the different strains of Singlish — acrolectal Singlish (i.e., the “high class” Singlish) and basilectal Singlish (the colloquial, ungrammatical type frowned on by the government).

Hossan Leong also had his audience in fits of laughter when he sang his localised version of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. His song, “We live in Singapura”, chronicled the history of Singapore from Sang Nila Utama to the present day.

This refreshing, citizen-driven event not only showcased the amazing artistic talents of Singaporeans, but more importantly demonstrated that Singapore does have a unique and vibrant culture despite our short history. The event succeeded in making Singaporeans laugh at themselves and in the process celebrate their “Singaporean-ness”, regardless of political differences.

The Wee Shu Min affair

Teenager Wee “Elite Face” Shu Min put Singapore on the map in October when her arrogant online rant against what she saw as a “whining” middle-aged Singaporean, and the subsequent vitriol against her resulted in her name topping Technorati’s most popular search words in the world for a few days. T
he storm went mainstream when journalist Ken Kwek reported the online war of words in The Straits Times (ST). The incident was later mentioned numerous times in subsequent newspaper articles and commentaries, and even in Parliament. Member of Parliament Wee Siew Kim, had to apologise twice on behalf of his daughter — the second apology was for his own insensitive remarks in his first “non-apology”.

There is no doubt that the intensity in which Singaporeans reacted to these dismissive comments by an “elite” father and daughter pair served as a warning bell of the fate that awaits any politician who is blind to the growing class divide in Singapore.

Self-regulation by bloggers

A TODAY article in December by blogger Dharmendra Yadav sparked off another debate in Blogosphere about self-regulation by bloggers and developing a bloggers’ code of ethics. Many articles were written in response, arguing both for and against the proposal. It was evident that despite the rationale put forward by its proponents, most Netizens were against the idea of any sort of regulation or code of ethics on a platform which some saw as the “last bastion of truly free expression” in Singapore.

Use of the Internet by political parties

In the past year, Opposition parties in Singapore made tentative steps to use the Internet to propagate their messages. Of the three major Opposition parties in Singapore, the SDP appears to be the most Web savvy. The party regularly publishes articles and press statements on its positions on various issues. On the other hand the WP, while maintaining a respectable Web presence, has yet to use the Web extensively to maximise its reach to the electorate. In fact, two WP central executive committee members resigned following online comments of theirs which did not square with the party leadership’s preferred method of engaging Singaporeans.

Foreign Minister George Yeo was the first Cabinet minister to start blogging regularly, with some surprisingly frank and insightful articles based on his interactions with foreign leaders. P65 MPs (the term coined for new MPs born after Independence) drew some chuckles when they first started blogging about grassroots activities which did not interest the majority of Netizens. However, by immediately posting their maiden speeches in Parliament and the PAP Conference on their blogs, they proved to be a step ahead of the main opposition Workers’ Party, which was markedly slower in using the Net for their party propaganda.

Government awakens to the new media

In his annual National Day Rally speech in August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong devoted over 25 minutes to expounding on how digital media is changing Singapore. He acknowledged that the new media will “change the texture of society” and that the traditional media was “under siege” to hold its audiences. While highlighting several citizen-driven new media initiatives, he surprised many when he mentioned political satire site TalkingCock, even remarking that “some of the jokes are not bad”. The site, which was founded by cartoonist and filmmaker Colin Goh, responded in feigned horror with a headline, “Seow Leow! TalkingCock Suffers Shrinkage, Street Cred Loss, After Rally Mention”. This was obviously not true, as TalkingCock enjoyed a huge surge in visits after the speech.

PM Lee also revealed the government’s distrust for the free-wheeling world of cyberspace. He told Singaporeans that “if you read something on the Straits Times or CNA (Channel NewsAsia) you know it is real”, unlike what is on TalkingCock. He warned Singaporeans to be “sceptical” and not believe everything they read, as “there will be half truths and untruths which will circulate, and you won’t know which is which”.

Many Netizens would have seen this as an unfair comparison, as they know that TalkingCock is just a humour site which has never claimed to be a source of proper news reports, while the ST and CNA too have their share of biases towards the government line.

PM Lee also made no mention of the many local blogs that debate political issues both objectively and independently. However, he signalled that the government would be prepared to change laws like the ones governing podcasts during elections and political videos to keep pace with developments in this digital age.

In response to these trends, the government set up a new unit in MICA’s public communications division named the New Media Unit, presumably to advise the government on Internet public communications strategies and to monitor Internet chatter. Changes to the Penal Code were also proposed to make explicit mention of electronic media as a platform for potentially defamatory comments.

STOMP and citizen journalism

In June, media giant SPH launched a new web portal, STOMP (Straits Times Online Mobile Print). It was billed by ST editor Han Fook Kwang as a platform “to provide readers with new avenues to express themselves, to enable them to interact with [the newspaper], and among themselves”.

While the paper trumpeted it as “citizen journalism”, academic and former Straits Times journalist Cherian George poured cold water on the idea. He said on his blog, “I don’t consider STOMP to be citizen journalism, because it puts the public on tap, not on top. It merely introduces greater interactivity to traditional journalism. Citizen journalism in the proper sense does its own agenda-setting. Citizen journalists decide what questions need to be asked and what topics to pursue. They don’t just answer questions decided by mainstream editors.”

Expected trends in 2007

Positive developments in the new media are expected to continue in 2007, barring any major government crackdown. As more Singaporeans from all backgrounds take to reading, writing and commenting on blogs, online forums, podcasts and vodcasts, the diversity of views on the Internet will also increase. Although most Internet chatter currently takes on a disproportionately anti-Establishment tone, there might be a slight shift in views to the right (i.e. the conservative) in 2007, as more people linked to the government machinery step in to counter their views.

We can expect more Singaporeans to warm up further to Blogosphere and see it as an increasingly credible alternative to the traditional media.

*******

Also check out Charissa’s excellent review: Rise of the New Media in Singapore Politics