« Singapore sends military engineers to Afghanistan | HomePage | Singapore: Defamation suit threatens shut-down of opposition party »
08/05/2008
Singapore looking at lighter touch in regulating internet
Listen to this article 08.05.08 07:06
The Singapore government is considering a lighter touch in regulating the internet after 13 bloggers called for freedom to discuss political issues and views, the group said on Thursday.
The bloggers also proposed that any regulation of online content should not be at the administrative discretion of officials, but through moderation by a consultative body of citizens.
"To keep up with the fast-evolving new media landscape, we have been reviewing our light-touch approach and are considering how we could take a lighter-touch approach," The Straits Times quoted K Bhavani, press secretary at the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), as saying.
"Our intent was to foster the growth of the internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects," she said.
The views of the bloggers plus feedback from others would be considered in the ministry's review of new media, she said in the published remarks.
The bloggers included a 19-year-old national serviceman and a 55-year-old businessman.
They e-mailed their suggestions to MICA minister Lee Boon Yang.
Law student Choo Zheng Xi said the group focused on the regulatory process and online political content, sex and violence.
"We remain very hopeful that they will incorporate some of our ideas," Alex Au, who operates the Yawning Bread website, told the newspaper.
Dear Mr Au
My Minister would like to thank you and your blogger friends for the effort in putting up the proposals for Internet deregulation which you had emailed to him on 20 April 2008.
MICA is well aware of the fact that Internet and new media technology have evolved by leaps and bounds since we introduced our light-touch approach in 1996. Back then, MICA had recognised the potential growth and impact of the Internet, and the tremendous opportunities and benefits that it will bring to all of us. We were also wary of its negative aspects. Hence, our response to the Internet was to take a balanced light-touch approach. Our intent with this light-touch approach was to foster the growth of the Internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects. That 79% of our households subscribe to broadband and many Singaporeans especially the younger citizens own a blog or participate in some form of new media clearly show that the light-touch approach had not been without merit.
To keep up with the fast-evolving new media landscape, we have been reviewing our light-touch approach and are considering how we could take a lighter touch approach. We have appointed the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) in April last year to study the new media and how best to refine our regulatory framework.
We will consider the views expressed in your proposal and other feedback in our review.
Yours sincerely
K.BHAVANI (Ms)
Press Secretary
to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
10:04 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, New Media, Media
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1546212
Comments
These bloggers are fucking nuts. Where did the dumb idea come from that you need to "ask permission" to express your views.
If you have to ask the govt for freedom, then it is not freedom.
Thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/05/2008
Hahaha... This is what I call democracy singapore style! Hahaha...its really funny to think that we have to ask permission for freedom of expression.
However, on a more solemn note, to have a wild horse on the loose may not be a good idea in the context of Singapore where some issues and topics lay on such a thin racial/ religious/ cultural/ political line that it may explode into our faces should there be no form of control.
While I tend to agree with you to a certain extent about the notion of freedom, not everyone is mature enough to react/ respond/ or not respond in the same manner as you and take comments as comments. The bloodshed in the 60s cannot be repeated again...Perhaps it is better to thread on the path of caution such that freedom - as in the freedom to live and walk the streets are preserved as we are today.
Posted by: Phillip Ee | 08/05/2008
I belive that oppression of expression is more dangerous than out-and-out freedom. Agreed, there are a lot of immature people around, but S'pore is WAY DIFFERENT now than is was when it was a struggling developing nation way back in the last century. Believe it or not, singaporeans are capable of non violent discussion despite the fact that some may resort to our national linguistic monument: "kani nabu chow chee bai" upon being defeated in an argument.
That's perfectly acceptable to me. In fact, I often use "the phrase" when I lose... and I feel much better after that! ahhhhh... a relief from all that mental work to simply "win" an argument, and stroke the ol' ego. I say, say "chee bai" to your opponent and get on with the rest of your life. It's so very, very cathartic!
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/05/2008
Hi Phillip Ee
asking permission for freedom of expression or freedom of any kind simply means that you ain't free, or rather that you currently don't have it.
i think what the group is hoping to achieve is that the threats hanging over bloggers heads be removed completely.
And as for "The bloodshed in the 60s " as soon as I read it I heard mr.brown from his podcast of last year uttering something very similar -
"Remember the Hock Lee Bus Riots!"
It should become Singapore's motto...
Posted by: soci | 08/05/2008
Singapore Inc is managed by a small board of directors, who decide how much benefits to dole out to their shareholders, who are supposed to ask for what they receive politely, and say thank you afterwards; the shareholders might grumble a bit at AGMs, but they comply
Posted by: yuen | 08/05/2008
Isn't it funny how we are always given the 'remember the ______ (whatever bad things that happen wayyyyyyyy long ago)' lectures each time we ask for a liberalisation of regulations?
I mean, yes, we have to take into consideration the Hock Lee riots and Maria Hurtogh riots etc etc, but we also have to look in context at the racial relations back then. Comparatively, we are in a way better position to let loose some of those rules that has been held steadfast over the past decades.
Posted by: shannon | 08/05/2008
It wasn't the 'race relations' so much as it was the LACK of freedom which were the cause of the riots. In other words, the state fucked up.
By freedom, I mean INDIVIDUAL freedom. The state failed miserably in protecting those freedoms.
Maria Hartog was essentially KINDNAPPED by the state (the court made the judgment ex parte) and simply handed her over to her natural parents, even when the child made it clear she wanted to stay with her adopted mother. The courts, plaintiffs and defendants could have worked something out to have shared custody, for example. But the courts heavy handed decision was seen to be Euro-centric and of course that always gives cause for the rabble-rousers to rouse the rabble.
The same for the Hock Lee bus riots. The state failed to protect the public from militant unionism. David Marshall, whom I generally hold in high esteem, messed up. Hey, everyone's human. Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, Lee Kuan Yew and other political animals used the situation to win political brownie points. Heck, they were 'young, dumb and full of cum', why not? That's what politicians do, especially when they are young and full of fire in the belly. Anti-colonial sentiment was high, and it was used imprudently.
The S'pore govt has misrepresented S'pore history to sell the nonsense ideas on necessity to control anything they can think of. Over the years this patriarchal authoritarianism has gotten way out of hand. Long hair -- banned. Music and books -- banned. Movies -- censored or banned. Rival newspapers like the Singapore Herald -- banned. FEER -- banned. Even the sale of chewing gum -- banned.
The Republic of Singapore was formed in 1965. Since its formation there's only been ONE riot -- the 1969 race riots which were a splillover from the Malaysian general elections. It is important to consider the socio-economic and political climate of the era. Singapore was only 4 years old. At the time, unemployment was high and many people were poor. Indonesia's Sukarno had committed acts of war on Singapore by landing 'special ops' and bombing McDonald House. Indonesia itself was a powder keg with the blood-thirsty fascist Soeharto now in charge, with a lust for hunting down and massacring anyone accused of being communist.
Freedom? What freedom? It was a very UNfree time. Individual freedom and liberty were not the cause behind all the violence. I submit that it was the LACK of liberty and freedom which contributed to poverty, state-sanctioned mass-murder, and racial violence in Malaysia.
The government of S'pore has sold a bullshit story to the people for over 40 years, and the people swallow it, general election after general election.
And it shows. One doesn't go to one's government and 'ask permission to be free". That's not it works in a developed country. In developed countries (or countries who want to develop and not starve or fight to death), governments are set up to DEFEND the liberty and freedom of individuals. LIMITS are IMPOSED upon the government to demarcate and define * SPECIFICALLY BY LAW * what they can do and what they can't, and these laws upheld by an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.
In other words, these 13 bloggers have got it all the wrong way around.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/05/2008
Congrats, in being sooooo considerately obedient in such a civic venture. We have to protect the innocent for the good of ALL, ya? Just wonderin' - how does the radical "S'pore Rebel' Martyn See feel about being roped into this citizenry-justified, co-opting vehicle? Oh, he doesn't care abt reputation anymore since he has not much left? Not true. What next wave can they look to, after the Royston Tan's and the Eric Khoo's? Now that the landscape has already CHANGED! ("Let's nurture his rebel instinct" - i can just hear Big Brother's minions say.) For all we know, See is already in a choiceless plea-bargain pact. All you poor pawns. I pity myself too, for that matter. However, think they'd bother roping me in for whatever-whatever? They certainly know better. Ha-ha, that's why I say - PAP forever! Really. (I really do mean it! How else can this little weasel-me thrive? Ha-ha!) I love it. You petitioning lot are even better at weaseling yourself than me - by pawning yourself for the so-called 'greater good'! (No better choice, right?) Fabulous. Am just that little envious. But do keep it up. Am enjoying the spectacle and sensation.
Posted by: X' Ho | 09/05/2008