Internet political discourse "dangerous"

last SG · 2006-04-04T01:55:16+00:00

If the government is going to make an example out of it, the information can be fed to the press and it will be page 1 news (just like the talk given by Dr B...

BillyBong SG

For a govt that prides itself on setting the standards, they seem cowed in fear over the unrelenting spread of information over a source they have almost no control over - the internet.

For one, the statement made by Dr Balaji Sadasivan, while typical of the manner in which our MPs never give direct and specific views, is simply too general.

Under what conditions will a comment or statement on the internet be considered 'POLITICAL'? Do we have any indication what kind of remarks will lead to persecution? Yes, we have SOME VAGUE impression that a certain KIND of remark will land us a verbal warning. But what exactly constitutes unlawful remarks?

In a sea of comments, the govt should take the lead and DEFINE these so-called obscure OB markers (to coin PM LHL's phrase). This streamlines all misconceptions about what can and cannot be spoken and ensures the transparency of free speech on the internet, especially in relation to the govt.

Yet our govt is visibly RELUCTANT to take this step, probably worried that they may end up outmanoeuvred by some dissident factions who continuously subject the govt to a tirade of criticisms without infringing on the law.

To that end, they prefer the definition of the 'OB Marker' to REMAIN OBSCURE, subject to their interpretation and enforcement. I don't expect our 'honest' and 'transparent' govt aka the ruling party to bother addressing this issue. They will prefer to remain vague and indirect, just like all their new so-claimed 'non-conformists' election candidates.

pisces8 SG

By the fact that up-to-date, I have not heard of any case related to this law tells a lot already. This shows it is that difficult to police (prosecute) using this law.

robertteh SG

If government can lift the controls on the press and media, then what it says about the need to control politicising in the internet will be seen as fair comment and supportable by the people.

If government on its part still cannot change and only want to gerrymander with one-sided media look-good presentations of old draconian policies and control freedoms of expressions and participations then it is taking the citizens for granted and not acknowing existence of problems as posted by many in the net.

If government wants to have more people taking part in political renewal, it must be prepared to loosen up to allow people to speak and write so that all the civil servants and ministers who are not doing their jobs properly will be scrutinized and all the existing problems properly solved based on free flow of objective and accountable information.

Which is the better alternative - controls and more restrictions or opening up to all citizens to give a better chance to get solved without planting the time bomb for future destruction.

Atobe SG

Is it " that difficult to 'police' (prosecute) " anyone using the internet that contravene existing laws ?

Have you so quickly forgotten the prosecution of the TWO Singaporean Bloggers for their racist remarks on the internet towards the Singaporean Minority Community ?

LazerLordz SG

It's the party behind the government machinery. The machinery is a tool that can instil progress or hinder discourse.

Which is why, we need a strong society that keeps an eye out for such things to ensure our political culture does not go this way anymore than need be.In the end, it all boils down to whether Singaporeans give a f**king damn about their future and whether they want to live under a state which loves being grey and vague.

The power lies with the one doing the interpretation, which naturally, they won't want to clearly delineate for fear of groups who can and are smarter in outwitting those rules.The challenge is how to produce the next generation of Singaporeans who, when in power, reject the implementation of such issues, which has an adverse impact on the macro-political space and growth of discourse in Singapore.

We want a more liberal and socially conscious Singapore, a real nation, not a corporation masquerading as one.

LazerLordz SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Is it " that difficult to 'police' (prosecute) " anyone using the internet that contravene existing laws ?

Have you so quickly forgotten the prosecution of the [b]TWO Singaporean Bloggers for their racist remarks on the internet towards the Singaporean Minority Community ?

[/b]

Racism is a no-no. This is not negotiable.

I believe that the Sedition Act has a clearer definition and schedule of charges for offensive and insulting behavior.

robertteh SG

About the old Election Advertising rules or laws under which the new restrictions on internet politicizing seems to have been proposed, does the government allow fair advertising among all the political parties campaigning for election?

If it is a fair law then may I ask:

(1) Why the portraits of so many incumbent MPs are displayed at traffic junction bill boards before the election time and those of intending political aspirants from oppositions are not allowed the same benefit.

(2) Why ministers and PM Lee can speak on politics and political issues even against other political parties on TV and forums and other political parties cannot do so.

If government wants its laws to be obeyed in the first place, it should make the law fair.

BillyBong SG

True, yet the circumstances to which they were exposed and arrested was somewhat dubious.

It took a member of the public who was personally offended to call in and complain before the police took action. In truth, who's to say that these remarks would have been ignored had NO ONE COMPLAINED?

Inconsistent standards of addressing internet issues is another area of concern for the public domain.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

We may not do it here, there are plenty of forums to discuss it. Besides, if they want, do it the North Korea. Cut off internet and interactions with the outside world.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Not seen in newspapers doesn't mean don't have. Cases can go unreported or police have been keeping a tight lip on such issues.

Devil1976 SG

< Laughing >

BillyBong SG

In response to Low Thia Khiang's question on the use of new technologies in parliament, Dr Balaji Sadasivan stated clearly that the use of PODCASTING is prohibited during elections.

Below is an section of his statements to round off the discussion:

We recognise that in our society, people will have their diverse opinion and some will want to share their opinion. But people should not take refuge behind the anonymity of the Internet to manipulate public opinion. It is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual
and objective manner, he said

It looks like not only do the ruling party want to use the internet for publicity purposes, they want a blanket monopoly on it too.

It's like building a public highway only for ministers and party members to drive on.

Doesn't he realise that the local political atmosphere coupled with the obscure OB markers have made open debate virtually impossible without fear of defamation suits?

Responsible and objective arguments? Bullocks. As if they can even accept objective criticisms from the public....

Devil1976 SG

Yup. Having vague laws is just like holding a gun and being free to use them anytime...

Usually it's those cases where they fire into the air or into of one of you to INSERT that INSTANT FEAR IN YOU.....

A 'gun' which is not given any much restriction or condition to its usage... Reminds me of myself when I was much younger... Playing a board game among friends.. Then because the game has varies versions of it which very much loosen up the rules... The loser board game owner just changes the rules of the game as he goes along.... Needless to say, he ultimately became the 'winner'.. But just not too long before everybody starts to quit....

Devil1976 SG

Originally posted by BillyBong:
In response to Low Thia Khiang's question on the use of new technologies in parliament, Dr Balaji Sadasivan stated clearly that the use of PODCASTING is prohibited during elections.

Below is an section of his statements to round off the discussion:

[b]

It looks like not only do the ruling party want to use the internet for publicity purposes, they want a blanket monopoly on it too.

It's like building a public highway only for ministers and party members to drive on.

Doesn't he realise that the local political atmosphere coupled with the obscure OB markers have made open debate virtually impossible without fear of defamation suits?

Responsible and objective arguments? Bullocks. As if they can even accept objective criticisms from the public....

[/b]

I've never really seen them show any much 'responsibility' when it comes to handling of political issues....? Rolling Eyes

LazerLordz SG

Thing is..we cannot just quit this game.It's a nation we are talking about.

TooFree SG

Although Vague law are hard to interpret but such law does not immediately means giving a plaintiff a winning verdict should the matter be hailed to court. It is afterall, dependent on the circumstances and nature of the offence in our independent judicary. Time and court fees are heavy consideration too.

Instead, in my opinion, vague law does serve its purpose by reminding any person who intend to express views especially of national concern over the internet to be socially responsible especially such comments are accessible to the general public.

Another point of issue is that, what is 'acceptable' comment are hard to define. So in here we are faced with two extreme scenerios. Free speech or No speech, either which may result in discontentment among its citizens. Hence, vague law may seem proper after all. If not, read my first paragraph again. Mr. Green

[email protected] SG

i guess singapore is really a 'democracy' Laughing

please la PM Lee, if u read this, take a minute to think just how absurd you guys sound. Power is like tofu. The more tightly u try to grip it, the more it slips out from between yr fingers.

oxford mushroom SG

Not true. The remarks were so off the mark that anyone would be offended. Those who make insensitive remarks on race and religion must be brought to task.

SG,LauBaiXing SG

The time's already RIPE !! All the riped fruits had already been pluged away right before our eyes !
Payments in Hundreds and Thousands of Singapore Dollars to individual for their harvested sweet fruits.
The process of rebate already announced as Applications in April, Progressive payment from May, Delivery date of Votes is drawing nearer.
There are Praying hard for another next 5 year term bumber harvesting of peanuts.

Parka SG

Talk is cheap when one can't back up one's claims with facts and source, which happens most of the time.

Internet is one of the best form to get information to the masses. And it's hard, if not impossible, to control.

Add these two together and you'll get uncontrollable discussions based not on facts, which I believe is why the government doesn't allow political discussion on the Internet.

« Previous Page Next Page »