Internet political discourse "dangerous"
-
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -
Political debate on the Internet could fuel "dangerous discourse" in Singapore, the government said on Monday, warning people who post political commentary on Web sites could face prosecution.
Speaking in parliament, senior minister of state Balaji Sadasivan, said anyone using the Internet to "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues" about Singapore during election periods was breaking the law.
Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, whose People's Action Party has dominated politics in the city-state since independence in 1965, is widely expected to call early elections in the coming months.
"In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debate could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse, flush with rumors and distortions to mislead and confuse the public," Sadasivan said.
The tiny island-republic's laws require political parties and individuals to register if they want to post political content on the Internet.
Print media in Singapore are tightly controlled, but the Internet is rife with Web sites that discuss Singapore politics, from the critical newsgroup sg_review (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/) to the comical www.talkingcock.com and blogs such as singabloodypore (http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com) and www.yawningbread.org.
It is not clear whether any of these sites have registered with the government.
While Sadasivan said the government's approach was to take "a light touch" in regulating the Internet, political activists have complained that the rules are too broadly defined, preventing an open debate. He said a change of the law was ruled out.
The rules also apply to "podcasting," an increasingly popular medium through which audio files are made available for download on the Internet, allowing Web surfers to listen to them at their convenience.
Last year, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan launched a podcast on the Singapore Democratic Party's Web site in an attempt to reach a wider audience and bypass the pro-government media.
-------
What a big fat joke.
Dangerous discourse?Or is it a danger to the survival of certain interests..
-
they cannot control so they seek to eliminate lor
-
Which is why it's even more important to have a change in government, is this the kind of country you want your kids to inherit?
-
Not again..........
-
Remember Remember the 5th of NOvember.....
-
My signature said it all...........
-
5th?Originally posted by shade343:Remember Remember the 5th of NOvember.....
what happened on the 5th of November? -
Eliminating means becoming North Korea.Originally posted by hisoka:they cannot control so they seek to eliminate lor
They only want to seek tighter control, like how they control print media. -
hey they are trying to eliminate the internet from politics mahOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Eliminating means becoming North Korea.
They only want to seek tighter control, like how they control print media. -
But the thing is how? Controlling everything that comes in and out like North Korea? Have a national firewall like China? It's practically impossible to eliminate Internet from politics.Originally posted by hisoka:hey they are trying to eliminate the internet from politics mah -
they trying lah whether they succed to what extent is another problemOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:But the thing is how? Controlling everything that comes in and out like North Korea? Have a national firewall like China? It's practically impossible to eliminate Internet from politics. -
Maybe. But I wouldn't want that.Originally posted by hisoka:they trying lah whether they succed to what extent is another problem -
I agree.
In all fairness, debate or one's comment especially of political nature should be regulated or veto by another. This is to prevent untruthful attack on the government and undermine the nation as a whole. Reading one-sided story most often does not formed the complete picture and worst, distorting can be a will in the process when information are passed down. Hence it is not fair to any party or any person under scrutinization. It is also not hard to understand that a healthy debate should works two ways, ie a proposition and an opposition team.
Forums registered or provided by the government are not only safe boundary for healthy debating of national issue but also allow one to feedback. More insights, indepth understanding or criticism on government policy can be better achieved in that sense.
-
Just who are the ones trying to MISLEAD, CONFUSE and DISCOURSE people from the TRUTH
And I thought they just mentioned about ENCOURAGING OPEN DISCUSSIONS and for PEOPLE to SPEAK UP...?
Speaking from the mouth in a min, and just SLAPPING IT IMMEDIATELY AFTER in another minute...
So what should the citizens of Singapore be talking about...?? ALL GOOD THINGS about the government and RULING PARTY, and anything else are just false statements which 'pollute' people and distance them from the 'truth' (which the pictures you're trying so hard to convince and install...?)...? -
It is safe boundaries no doubt, but would the people moderating it be fair? Would the government allow criticism?Originally posted by TooFree:Forums registered or provided by the government are not only safe boundary for healthy debating of national issue but also allow one to feedback. More insights, indepth understanding or criticism on government policy can be better achieved in that sense. -
I call this an attempt to prevent a fair and vigorous debate, and the marketplace of ideas is a hallmark of a functioning democracy.Originally posted by TooFree:I agree.
In all fairness, debate or one's comment especially of political nature should be regulated or veto by another. This is to prevent untruthful attack on the government and undermine the nation as a whole. Reading one-sided story most often does not formed the complete picture and worst, distorting can be a will in the process when information are passed down. Hence it is not fair to any party or any person under scrutinization. It is also not hard to understand that a healthy debate should works two ways, ie a proposition and an opposition team.
Forums registered or provided by the government are not only safe boundary for healthy debating of national issue but also allow one to feedback. More insights, indepth understanding or criticism on government policy can be better achieved in that sense.
Proper forums are well and good, except that they must not be government run.How then can you expect criticism of the government if it has control over what people say?
I find this the death throes of a mentality that is out of vogue, and refuses to acknowledge that their time is over, and seeks to hinder other factions which would be assisted by this knowledge.
Furthermore, who is he to say what is acceptable in a point of view?All of them share the same malaise, the delusion that they are saviors or future saviors of Singapore.. -
The choice is in the hands of the people, let's see if they are smart enough to add 1 + 1 together..
if you want to damn your kids to such a life, then it's a shame. A real shame. -
Now... Ain't we all just TOO FAMILAR with THAT...?Originally posted by TooFree:I agree.
In all fairness, debate or one's comment especially of political nature should be regulated or veto by another. This is to prevent untruthful attack on the government and undermine the nation as a whole. Reading one-sided story most often does not formed the complete picture and worst, distorting can be a will in the process when information are passed down. Hence it is not fair to any party or any person under scrutinization. It is also not hard to understand that a healthy debate should works two ways, ie a proposition and an opposition team.
Forums registered or provided by the government are not only safe boundary for healthy debating of national issue but also allow one to feedback. More insights, indepth understanding or criticism on government policy can be better achieved in that sense. -
What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to others. And that's the problem. The government finds that some views are really unacceptable to them, but to the citizens, they feel that it is all right. That's why they want to control.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Furthermore, who is he to say what is acceptable in a point of view?All of them share the same malaise, the delusion that they are saviors or future saviors of Singapore.. -
Sigh, that's so true..Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to others. And that's the problem. The government finds that some views are really unacceptable to them, but to the citizens, they feel that it is all right. That's why they want to control. -
Likewise. How can you expect the government to respond and explain the terms and the reasoning for the implementation of their policy?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Proper forums are well and good, except that they must not be government run.How then can you expect criticism of the government if it has control over what people say? -
true true. thats pretty much how censorship came about i guess.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to others. And that's the problem. The government finds that some views are really unacceptable to them, but to the citizens, they feel that it is all right. That's why they want to control. -
Heard of the term 'CRY WOLF'?Originally posted by TooFree:Likewise. How can you expect the government to respond and explain the terms and the reasoning for the implementation of their policy?
If you don't want people to doubt you, why be dishonest in the 1st place
"Once bitten, TWICE SHY...." If there're a 3rd time, it might probably be TOO LATE.... IMAGINE what things they've been doing already with this level of CONTROL over US... Can you EVEN IMAGINE what they could be doing with MORE POWER....? You wanna sit around and TRY YOUR LUCK...?
MANY people often mention that Singapore politics is not that bad compared to many other countries... I'll say that's just because the time's not ripe... When it is, it'll be TOO LATE.... -
I don't quite share your view. Instead, I would say that censorship or regulation is essential because of wrongful remarks or allegation make against the government and the worst case scenerio could have happened is social discontentment cause by a few unlawful and untruthful comment over the internet. In my opinion, this is definitely not fair to the defendant, government in this case, not unless the government is given a chance to speak up.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to others. And that's the problem. The government finds that some views are really unacceptable to them, but to the citizens, they feel that it is all right. That's why they want to control. -
Agree with you that censorship is required to prevent wrongful allegations against the government.Originally posted by TooFree:I don't quite share your view. Instead, I would say that censorship or regulation is essential because of wrongful remarks or allegation make against the government and the worst case scenerio could have happened is social discontentment cause by a few unlawful and untruthful comment over the internet. In my opinion, this is definitely not fair to the defendant, government in this case, not unless the government is given a chance to speak up.
But if it is used to an extent that citizens feel that they are suffocated because of this restriction, that restriction, it won't be fair to the opposition as well as the citizens.
Government while no doubt should speak up, but I feel that newspapers and media are already doing a good job. For discussion forums, it should be for the citizens and opposition parties. Since they don't get the chance to speak up more often than the government.