Internet political discourse "dangerous"
-
I think the PAP has shot its lame self in the foot with Balaji.....
It heartens me to read this forum.
Singaporean finally give a shit.!!!
Rally forth and let ur voices be heared -
What's new?Originally posted by headset:I think it pretty darn clear form that statement from Balaji that they fear the man that cannot be seen. Only cuz they cant sue the hell out him and sinlence him.
Fear and Tyrany under a msak of Progress packages.... waht bull crap...
It's the same old thang...over and over and over and over and over and over...and over and over and over.... -
Well, hey, I mean, if THEY wanna clamp down and control the Internet within Singapore, then by all means go ahead and declare Singapore a communist country. Like China.
Why so Kia-su Kia-si? PAP has done a lot of good for us all, and our economic is on solid ground, we have progressed technologically at an incredible pace. What's there to fear about oppositions undermining PAP's hold on the people's faith?
In fact, WHAT opposition parties? DO you all see ANY formidable ones lurking around??? I sure as heck DON'T! Thet're all eradicated! -
potong pasir's MP lor... currently most formidable opposition in sg...
hope he can climb to minister's level den have something different from PAP. -
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.
what about passionate discussion of political issues? does that constitute law breaking? which law are we breaking anyway?
"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.
so it is only the Internet that is free for all. elsewhere it is free only to certain people while others have to pay a hefty price for merely speaking up. that's why nobody goes to the speakers corner. nobody.
in any case how do you classify rumours and distortions? anything other than what you wish to hear or say?
The tiny island-republic's laws require political parties and individuals to register if they want to post political content on the Internet.
that's gagging us isn't it? do you have the right to gag us? is that democracy? -
Originally posted by ShutterBug:
PAP has done a lot of good for us all, and our economic is on solid ground, we have progressed technologically at an incredible pace.
if you compare our pace with those of hong kong, taiwan and korea, then we're merely just on par with similarly driven people. if you attribute our success today to the PAP, then who do we attribute hong kong's success to? there is no PAP in hong kong yet they have succeeded as well as we did. so it really isn't the PAP but we who have done good for ourselves. as for technological progress, the economic quagmire we're in right now is precisely due to our ignoring technological progress so much so we now have to play catch up with countries like taiwan.
In fact, WHAT opposition parties? DO you all see ANY formidable ones lurking around??? I sure as heck DON'T! Thet're all eradicated!
if no one votes the opposition in, what can they do? we judge them based on what they've done, given the oppotunities that they've been given, not what they were prevented from doing. in this respect, i say they've done a hell of a good job, especially Mr Chiam and Mr Low. -
Totally spot on. That is the very underpinning of democracy, the usage of power to protect the right of all narratives, opinions and memories to exist.It must never be used by one party or faction to dictate and drive a singular truth or representation.Originally posted by headset:Look, the reason why forums here have more active participation then the ones ot side of cyberspace is simple. Its because online every one can bea heared. there is freedom of speech and oppinion in a sense as opposed to the overly regulated public forums.
Its important to understand, that political views and debate is the right of every citizen in a democracy. Now even if these attacks on the goverment are of no truth, it is not the right of a democratically elected government to silence them with the full force of the law. They should defend themselves in a fair arena of debate.
You talk of distortion of truth. Does that mean u accept the ruling part's truth as the actual truth. We as citizens have a right to decide what truths we wanna believe in. It ur freedom of oppinion that is at the core of the idea of democracy.
Its important that we have available to us a gamut of ideas. Only then can we choose the one that fits us best.
To be told what to think seems really communist/authoratarian/dictatorish/monarchish.
I say we tell the goverment waht to do.. and not the other way around.
is it not irrelevent to have a party in power for so long?
Restructureing is needed. Since they like forign diverse talent soo much, how come parliment has no diversity of oppinion in the for of an opposition.
With larger opposition numbers in parliment i bet we, the common man will have a larger voice. Lets even up the odds -
Lwflee's official statement to Balaji:
DIAM LAH! etc etc etc. -
what about passionate discussion of political issues? does that constitute law breaking? which law are we breaking anyway?
That is not a problem if it is just an exchange of opinions based on facts...
The problem is that there are people even in this forum who would make baseless allegations and personal attacks amounting to defamation. If Singaporeans cannot be mature enough to handle passionate but honest discussions, one must protect the interests of the aggrieved party.
Registration has the advantage of making it easier to prosecute the operator of the forum (under the law, whoever publishes or allows to be published a defamatory remark is also liable).
However, I disagree with the prohibition of podcasts...I think that is purely a protectionist move and one that is unnecessary in any case.. -
There is the other side of the coin, which denotes defamation as being highly abused when there is a judiciary that chooses to interpret it too closely to the aggrieved, especially in our situation.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is not a problem if it is just an exchange of opinions based on facts...
The problem is that there are people even in this forum who would make baseless allegations and personal attacks amounting to defamation. If Singaporeans cannot be mature enough to handle passionate but honest discussions, one must protect the interests of the aggrieved party.
Registration has the advantage of making it easier to prosecute the operator of the forum (under the law, whoever publishes or allows to be published a defamatory remark is also liable).
However, I disagree with the prohibition of podcasts...I think that is purely a protectionist move and one that is unnecessary in any case..
What then does it say?In a more pluralistic society, one may see allegation A as being more chock-ful of truth, and in a more totalitarian society in the political context, that same allegation A might be hard to back up with facts, because we lack a FOIA legislation, and also end up being construed as defamation when even it is silently implicit and acknowledged by a majority who are in no position of affect or even have a minute impact on the judgment.
This is the grey area afflicting Singapore today, where the implicit is well-known, yet cannot be said, nor published.Take NKF for example, what was construed as defamation was later to be proven true.Yet how many here have resources, or the propituous convergence of interests that led SPH to be placed strategically to be the "whistleblower"?
Worth a ponder, for we do not know how many of these "defamatory" statements are more truthful than their defenses are. -
Could you point out any examples of what you term 'baseless allegations' and 'personal attacks amounting to defamation'?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is not a problem if it is just an exchange of opinions based on facts...
The problem is that there are people even in this forum who would make baseless allegations and personal attacks amounting to defamation. If Singaporeans cannot be mature enough to handle passionate but honest discussions, one must protect the interests of the aggrieved party.
Registration has the advantage of making it easier to prosecute the operator of the forum (under the law, whoever publishes or allows to be published a defamatory remark is also liable).
However, I disagree with the prohibition of podcasts...I think that is purely a protectionist move and one that is unnecessary in any case..
If there are any, I am sure the Admin and the ones providing the server would be very interested to know. -
If you are referring to the CSJ defamation case, then I do not think any of your concerns hold true. IIRC, what CSJ said could potentially be very damaging to anyone's reputation. To say that he has defamed is, imo, perfectly correct. My only problem is with the damages awarded. I think the damages awarded were way over the top and had a punitive element.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There is the other side of the coin, which denotes defamation as being highly abused when there is a judiciary that chooses to interpret it too closely to the aggrieved, especially in our situation.
What then does it say?In a more pluralistic society, one may see allegation A as being more chock-ful of truth, and in a more totalitarian society in the political context, that same allegation A might be hard to back up with facts, because we lack a FOIA legislation, and also end up being construed as defamation when even it is silently implicit and acknowledged by a majority who are in no position of affect or even have a minute impact on the judgment.
This is the grey area afflicting Singapore today, where the implicit is well-known, yet cannot be said, nor published.Take NKF for example, what was construed as defamation was later to be proven true.Yet how many here have resources, or the propituous convergence of interests that led SPH to be placed strategically to be the "whistleblower"?
Worth a ponder, for we do not know how many of these "defamatory" statements are more truthful than their defenses are.
I also do not think that something is not defamation simply because it is implicit and acknowledged by the majority. The whole point about defamation is so that people cannot simply go around spouting unfounded and unproven half-truths and rumours about others. That type of behaviour is potentially very damaging to the one defamed and I think that in contemporary society, one's reputation is very precious. -
Let our voices be heard? They will use the same old tactic and send us all to jail! So in future no one dare to voice out against them again...Originally posted by headset:I think the PAP has shot its lame self in the foot with Balaji.....
It heartens me to read this forum.
Singaporean finally give a shit.!!!
Rally forth and let ur voices be heared -
I am not merely referring to the CSJ case. Many of our supposed defamation cases have lost ground abroad, because of varying degrees of tort unproven.Originally posted by lwflee:If you are referring to the CSJ defamation case, then I do not think any of your concerns hold true. IIRC, what CSJ said could potentially be very damaging to anyone's reputation. To say that he has defamed is, imo, perfectly correct. My only problem is with the damages awarded. I think the damages awarded were way over the top and had a punitive element.
I also do not think that something is not defamation simply because it is implicit and acknowledged by the majority. The whole point about defamation is so that people cannot simply go around spouting unfounded and unproven half-truths and rumours about others. That type of behaviour is potentially very damaging to the one defamed and I think that in contemporary society, one's reputation is very precious.
What is defamation in one society is not in another.Ours is pretty much more stringent/high-strung than the rest.I personally believe that most of these cases here, are not that serious.In fact, how far do you pursue until people begin to suspect if you really have something to hide, because you want a particular opinion silenced.
Reputations are important, but the degree of which is still over-the-top here. -
Hmm...
M© oneliner...with apologies.
:: Is the government afraid that we might be too mature to handle political issues or are we immature? -
I was watching the news last night....... the malay muslim lady candidate fielded by the PAP(not bothered with her name) , said that she would stand up and defend sound policies that are not popular..... like the POD casting issue.... balh blah blah... then she said Politics should not be taken as entertainment... blah blah blah......
Ha ha ha... it sounds to me like she thinks that singaporeans are simple minded folk too preoccupied with the mundane to have a clue about politics. She completely misses the point that it its is about the PAP's exertion of its chokehold on expression that infuriates the people and nothing else.
Considering all popular media in singapore is prettymcuh ruling party friendly, the Internet, the last free domain is the last free playground of ideas, should not be policed. -
PRECISELY WHAT THEY WANT...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is not a problem if it is just an exchange of opinions based on facts...
The problem is that there are people even in this forum who would make baseless allegations and personal attacks amounting to defamation. If Singaporeans cannot be mature enough to handle passionate but honest discussions, one must protect the interests of the aggrieved party.
Registration has the advantage of making it easier to prosecute the operator of the forum (under the law, whoever publishes or allows to be published a defamatory remark is also liable).
However, I disagree with the prohibition of podcasts...I think that is purely a protectionist move and one that is unnecessary in any case..
-
I was watching the news last night....... the malay muslim lady candidate fielded by the PAP(not bothered with her name) , said that she would stand up and defend sound policies that are not popular..... like the POD casting issue.... balh blah blah... then she said Politics should not be taken as entertainment... blah blah blah......
Ha ha ha... it sounds to me like she thinks that singaporeans are simple minded folk too preoccupied with the mundane to have a clue about politics. She completely misses the point that it its is about the PAP's exertion of its chokehold on expression that infuriates the people and nothing else.
Considering all popular media in singapore is prettymcuh ruling party friendly, the Internet, the last free domain is the last free playground of ideas, should not be policed. -
I'm just wondering... has it occurred to anyone that no matter what is said throughout our education, the pledge etc... Singapore is not a democracy?? it's an authoritarian society... and as such, freedom of speech is not a right we the people have. Rather it is a privilege given by the govt and can be taken away.
I'm not saying anything in support of this and personally, I wish the govt will loosen up, let the people think and debate and make up our own minds than dictate what is good or bad for us through the media mouthpiece.
I'm just pointing out the obvious which I've come across many times in my discussion with foreign students and lecturers... that for singaporeans to think we are a democracy and freedom of speech is a right... that's complete delusion. We need to wipe our glasses / clean our contact lenses and look carefully again. -
You know, all this new ruling or law over podcasting, blogging, and the internet just because of election, makes PAP look very INSECURE.
I mean look, what's the point of allowing for oppositions when you allow the oppositions NO other avenues of reaching out to the public? You might as well forget about allowing for opposition parties to exist! Forget about GE.
If there's so much restrictions, forget about election.
Just stay in power permanently.
After all , who is there to object or even protest???
Only that we will keep loosing capable citizens to other countries.. that's all. More and more are walking out on Singapore. -
Originally posted by headset:
Sorry and i am not trying to be racist, but i alway felt that the majority of the malays likes the PAP alot...Correct me if i am wrong.
I was watching the news last night....... the malay muslim lady candidate fielded by the PAP(not bothered with her name) , said that she would stand up and defend sound policies that are not popular..... like the POD casting issue.... balh blah blah... then she said Politics should not be taken as entertainment[b]... blah blah blah......
Ha ha ha... it sounds to me like she thinks that singaporeans are simple minded folk too preoccupied with the mundane to have a clue about politics. She completely misses the point that it its is about the PAP's exertion of its chokehold on expression that infuriates the people and nothing else.
Considering all popular media in singapore is prettymcuh ruling party friendly, the Internet, the last free domain is the last free playground of ideas, should not be policed.
[/b] -
So if we do not take up our responsibility as citizens and reject this authoritarian society through our votes, then who else can we blame than ourselves if in the future, this nation slides down the road to ruin?Originally posted by KittynMeow:I'm just wondering... has it occurred to anyone that no matter what is said throughout our education, the pledge etc... Singapore is not a democracy?? it's an authoritarian society... and as such, freedom of speech is not a right we the people have. Rather it is a privilege given by the govt and can be taken away.
I'm not saying anything in support of this and personally, I wish the govt will loosen up, let the people think and debate and make up our own minds than dictate what is good or bad for us through the media mouthpiece.
I'm just pointing out the obvious which I've come across many times in my discussion with foreign students and lecturers... that for singaporeans to think we are a democracy and freedom of speech is a right... that's complete delusion. We need to wipe our glasses / clean our contact lenses and look carefully again.
I'm of the opinion that right now we are an authoritarian society, but democracy is as much our right as it is an ideal.We will get there, but we have to keep the train moving, not remove the wheels because only the engineers say so and they are the "best". -
i agwee with the replies by our fellow forummers. you need to tell us who are making baseless allegations and defamation is too often used as a shield for our politcians to hide behind.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That is not a problem if it is just an exchange of opinions based on facts...
The problem is that there are people even in this forum who would make baseless allegations and personal attacks amounting to defamation. If Singaporeans cannot be mature enough to handle passionate but honest discussions, one must protect the interests of the aggrieved party.
Registration has the advantage of making it easier to prosecute the operator of the forum (under the law, whoever publishes or allows to be published a defamatory remark is also liable).
However, I disagree with the prohibition of podcasts...I think that is purely a protectionist move and one that is unnecessary in any case.. -
caught snippets of new PAP candidates in action over the last one or two days. have some comments ...
there was this malay, lady doctor who supported the ban of political discussions on the Internet saying that people do not understand the long term implications of such political discussions. this to me is the same haughtiness that the PAP has always exhibited, telling us they know better and that we're stupid. this is the kind of govt i do not want because if they really could see better than us, they would've foreseen the grave political consequences of Shin corporation, they would've done things differently in Suzhou, they would not have waited till today to start the R&D engine ... they're really no different from us, yet they act as though they're superior.
i think we shouldn't be overly concerned with the pedigree of candidates. we're not choosing pet dogs for goodness sake.
there was this lawyer candidate who questioned the purpose of having a stronger alternative voice. an alternative to what he says? what are the things that needs to be changed he asked?
1. our economy is in bad shape ever since the turn of the millenium. our stewards haven't been doing a good job. we need more people with no relationship whatsoever with the steward to come on board to scrutinise the steward's choices and decisions and make sure he is not steering us towards the rocks.
2. the casino saga has shown us that whatever diversity of opinions the PAP may breed within itself, at the end of the day, everyone listens to the captain. that is why we need more opposition so that in the event of another issue of national importance there can be more voices that reflect our wishes rather than those of any single entity.
3. the NKF saga may simply be the tip of the ice berg. as a member of the white team, how would we know that the lawyer would effortlessly dig out anything that would stain their white shirts? only another person, not wearing a white shirt would have no qualms digging out any possible dirt underneath those white shirts.
there are many more and unless the lawyer hasn't been in touch with the ground, he should know better.
finally just want to make comment about the comment about opposition not making enough contributions in parliament. that is the exact same thing i feel about PAP candidates. during the casino saga, there were only one PAP candidate and one NMP i was impressed with. Loh Meng See and Eunice Olsen. they really spoke with conviction, from the bottom of their hearts without fear. apart from these two, i think Wang Kai Yuen is also pretty vocal too in speaking up for the people. other than these handful, the majority of the 70 plus PAP candidates sound more like parrots or boot lickers to me. -
They can sing a whole symphony, but the song sheet says the same title.
it's about party survival.