Internet political discourse "dangerous"
-
giving the defandant a chance to speak up does not equate to no wrongful remarks and allegations.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.
anyway the problem would be what is wrongful remarks and allegations in the first place. how do you define it? unlawful itself is a judgement made byt he government that we are sayign shouldn't interfere so we should probably take that out. and untruthful is again hard to prove although it sounds easy -
debate and one's comment are two different things altogether. why comment of political nature should be regulated or veto by another?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.
Are not government agent monitoring all the websites? participate in the "reply to comments" just like what you did? and inviting members for "tea" talks? -
from capitalism --> communism?
or are we like internal communism, but acts democracy to bootlick countries that can help us prosper?
china's restriction is much more scarier. i've seen a show, 2 taiwanese reporters on a talk show. they mentioned how china govt' monitors the foreign reporters. china govt have the right to grab u to their office and ask u wad u have done for past 7 days (wth? who will remember every detail?) if u fail to write down a report 100% similar to what they surveilianced for past 7 days, they'll put the report back into their hotel room (where's the piracy?), tell them to rewrite the truth. thats scary. they can go in and out of ur room without any piracy, if u do something wrong, or your particular country, (e.g. china > taiwan) u'll be bullied and even put into some crime u've never done b4.
are we much safer with a more gentle govt'? -
The Singapore government has the local press and media at their disposal to do that.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? -
We already have sufficient laws against those who would defame or incite civil and religious unrest...I think the records of the PAP show they can well take care of themselves..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.
Restricting the power of Opposition Parties to campaign effectively by using new technology is not only a step back for Singapore but is also totally unnecessary. -
Wat u sid abt China is true. Most forums linked to overseas are banned in China. For example search engines of google or yahoo used in China are those"politically corrected" ones, which means u most prob can't search for things like Tiananmen. Recently the increasing cases of social unrest between the capitalist and lower-income ppls of China is also strongly sensored off. For example, the DongZhou riot in which cause abt 30 dead and scores wounded is efficiently cordoned off by the police, no info abt the situation happening in the village, no interview or photo taking allowed. The most funny thing is that the police immediately ferret out wat they perceive as the mastermind and slap them with the charges, CCTV merely reported the case as "minor civil disturbance lead by personnels mislead by foreign propanganda
" The case abt China is also similar. We(the incubent party) are the angels, while the alternate views are the devils. Most importantly, most Chinese are trained to believe all negative news abt China is fabricated by the westerners out to smear their reputation, and 'democracy' is a ploy created by the west to poison China. -
China's CCCP has borrowed a leaf from Singapore's PAP - take a hard knock on the bottom line of the foreign media moguls, and they will fall into line between idealism and reality - Politics or Profits.Originally posted by equlus84:Wat u sid abt China is true. Most forums linked to overseas are banned in China. For example search engines of google or yahoo used in China are those"politically corrected" ones, which means u most prob can't search for things like Tiananmen. Recently the increasing cases of social unrest between the capitalist and lower-income ppls of China is also strongly sensored off. For example, the DongZhou riot in which cause abt 30 dead and scores wounded is efficiently cordoned off by the police, no info abt the situation happening in the village, no interview or photo taking allowed. The most funny thing is that the police immediately ferret out wat they perceive as the mastermind and slap them with the charges, CCTV merely reported the case as "minor civil disturbance lead by personnels mislead by foreign propanganda " The case abt China is also similar. We(the incubent party) are the angels, while the alternate views are the devils. Most importantly, most Chinese are trained to believe all negative news abt China is fabricated by the westerners out to smear their reputation, and 'democracy' is a ploy created by the west to poison China.
China's CCCP has learnt well from Singapore's PAP in the role of the POWER OF ONE - dominating and controlling the center, blurring facts and farce, coddling the selected few and suppressing the minions, cultivating the masses whom they depend for their legitimacy but insecure to its own continuity and permanence.
You see what power is - holding someone else's fear in your hand and showing it to them!
Amy Tan (1952 - )
It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983),
The Passionate State of Mind, 1954
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton, 1887
The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.
Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968 ) ,
'I Remember, I Believe,' The Pursuit of Justice, 1964 -
Another case where the leadership deserves nothing more than a wake up slap across the cheek for assuming that they possess a monopoly on power. In all of these cases, it is the people and their right to free expression get trampled upon, though for China,her sheer size and income gap does hint at a slightly more legitimate stain, though i find it unpalatable in the end.Originally posted by equlus84:Wat u sid abt China is true. Most forums linked to overseas are banned in China. For example search engines of google or yahoo used in China are those"politically corrected" ones, which means u most prob can't search for things like Tiananmen. Recently the increasing cases of social unrest between the capitalist and lower-income ppls of China is also strongly sensored off. For example, the DongZhou riot in which cause abt 30 dead and scores wounded is efficiently cordoned off by the police, no info abt the situation happening in the village, no interview or photo taking allowed. The most funny thing is that the police immediately ferret out wat they perceive as the mastermind and slap them with the charges, CCTV merely reported the case as "minor civil disturbance lead by personnels mislead by foreign propanganda " The case abt China is also similar. We(the incubent party) are the angels, while the alternate views are the devils. Most importantly, most Chinese are trained to believe all negative news abt China is fabricated by the westerners out to smear their reputation, and 'democracy' is a ploy created by the west to poison China.
Any false opposition and pseudo-democracy is bound to fail, this sort of travesty must be rejected as a perversion of the political process that harms the integrity of the Republic. -
Ok, Administrators, you have read the article.
Please promptly shut down this forum for now.
Speak no evil, See no evil, and Hear no evil. -
and surrender to evil.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Ok, Administrators, you have read the article.
Please promptly shut down this forum for now.
Speak no evil, See no evil, and Hear no evil.
-
It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Ok, Administrators, you have read the article.
Please promptly shut down this forum for now.
Speak no evil, See no evil, and Hear no evil.
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983),
The Passionate State of Mind, 1954 -
I gathered from The Straits Times – 4 Apr 06 page 1.
This is something to do with “Election Advertising Rules – 2001”
The list spells out explicitly what political parties, candidates and election agents can do to promote themselves during the election campaign. It includes references to chatrooms, discussion forums and websites.
Among the rules: Websites of political parties have to be registered with the MDA.
“So too websites that take an avowedly political stance, such as the “Think Centre”.”
Threading Dr BalajiÂ’s answers was this message : If an individual uses his website in the way a political parties does, to espouse political views, he will have to have the website registered. -
Remember that Singapore Judiciary is independent. The Judge/s may not agree (100%) with the interpretations of the written laws by MDA and Dr Balaji. So whatever expressed by individual (or organization) on the interpretation of the written laws is just opinion, unless it has been contested in the Court.Originally posted by PatrickLTH:I gathered from The Straits Times – 4 Apr 06 page 1.
This is something to do with “Election Advertising Rules – 2001”
The list spells out explicitly what political parties, candidates and election agents can do to promote themselves during the election campaign. It includes references to chatrooms, discussion forums and websites.
Among the rules: Websites of political parties have to be registered with the MDA.
“So too websites that take an avowedly political stance, such as the “Think Centre”.”
Threading Dr BalajiÂ’s answers was this message : If an individual uses his website in the way a political parties does, to espouse political views, he will have to have the website registered.
Do remember, the written law is quite clear for general purpose use also. So, if you are a political party and want to use your website (to promote yourself / party during the election campaign), you better register your website with the MDA. -
Users of this forums to note, if you are political parties, candidates and election agents and you wish to promote yourself during the election campaign, please refrain from promoting yourself in this forums.Originally posted by PatrickLTH:I gathered from The Straits Times – 4 Apr 06 page 1.
This is something to do with “Election Advertising Rules – 2001”
The list spells out explicitly what political parties, candidates and election agents can do to promote themselves during the election campaign. It includes references to chatrooms, discussion forums and websites.
Among the rules: Websites of political parties have to be registered with the MDA.
Otherwise I do not see any problem to continue with what we are doing, provided whatever we say is supported by facts. (please comply with defamation law). -
quite right, but with regards to the Judiciary, you know as well as I do la.Originally posted by pisces8:Users of this forums to note, if you are political parties, candidates and election agents and you wish to promote yourself during the election campaign, please refrain from promoting yourself in this forums.
Otherwise I do not see any problem to continue with what we are doing, provided whatever we say is supported by facts. (please comply with defamation law). -
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. -
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.
-
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. -
Is it " that difficult to 'police' (prosecute) " anyone using the internet that contravene existing laws ?Originally posted by pisces8: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.
Have you so quickly forgotten the prosecution of the TWO Singaporean Bloggers for their racist remarks on the internet towards the Singaporean Minority Community ? -
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. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Racism is a no-no. This is not negotiable.
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]
I believe that the Sedition Act has a clearer definition and schedule of charges for offensive and insulting behavior. -
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. -
True, yet the circumstances to which they were exposed and arrested was somewhat dubious.Originally posted by LazerLordz: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.
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. -
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.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Ok, Administrators, you have read the article.
Please promptly shut down this forum for now.
Speak no evil, See no evil, and Hear no evil. -
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.Originally posted by pisces8: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.