Internet political discourse "dangerous"
-
Plenty...like claiming there is a cover-up over the drowning case? Anyone can make a serious allegations like this in a forum but not willing or able to back it up with evidence....that's what the government wants to prevent. Registration makes it easier to prosecute and prevent such allegations not backed up by evidence. It used to be the same with the Forum Page in the Straits Times...but since anonymous letters were no longer accepted, the criticisms and statements have become more responsible.Originally posted by snow leopard: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.
CSJ has also made claims about illegal financial transactions involving the Burmese...but where's the evidence?
However, that is not a reason to ban podcasts though..Our existing laws are more than sufficient to deal with any party attempting to pass defamatory remarks in podcasts. That move by the government does appear to be protectionist.. -
Can you present evidence in a need-to-know basis.Stop using the dunking case as a one-size-fits-all precedence for everything.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Plenty...like claiming there is a cover-up over the drowning case? Anyone can make a serious allegations like this in a forum but not willing or able to back it up with evidence....that's what the government wants to prevent. Registration makes it easier to prosecute and prevent such allegations not backed up by evidence. It used to be the same with the Forum Page in the Straits Times...but since anonymous letters were no longer accepted, the criticisms and statements have become more responsible.
CSJ has also made claims about illegal financial transactions involving the Burmese...but where's the evidence?
However, that is not a reason to ban podcasts though..Our existing laws are more than sufficient to deal with any party attempting to pass defamatory remarks in podcasts. That move by the government does appear to be protectionist..
You should know that there are things heard in Army that are not fit for public consumption.That doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
Burmese issue, try and find some publishable evidence from the junta. Unless you are related to Than Shwe or any of those sorry snakes, it's as hard as coaxing honey from the rock, and I'm quite sure I ain't God. -
If the our government cracks down on Singaporeans' podcast and blogs do not despair.
If you feel you have a statement to make, use Googles Video. Stay anonymous if you like, Googles is safe. Even the Pres of USA cant touch them!
Google Video is the best new medium for making your statement .
If you want people to believe you, make sure you don't say anything that is libellious or nonsensical. -
Burden of proof, my friend, burden of proof...If you bring an allegation, you have to carry the burden of proof...basic legal principle.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You should know that there are things heard in Army that are not fit for public consumption.That doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
Burmese issue, try and find some publishable evidence from the junta. Unless you are related to Than Shwe or any of those sorry snakes, it's as hard as coaxing honey from the rock, and I'm quite sure I ain't God. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Burden of proof ?
Burden of proof, my friend, burden of proof...If you bring an allegation, you have to carry the burden of proof...basic legal principle.
Was that the lonely and ignored cry from Chia Thye Poh who was incarcerated for OVER TWENTY YEARS in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT in Singapore - on the mere accusation by the POWER OF ONE that he is a Communist, advocating the armed revolution and overthrow of a 'legally' elected Government ?
Did you hear of the burden of proof needed to lock up all those who have been detained INDEFINITELY under the Criminal Detention Legislation and the Internal Security Act that allow anyone to be locked up at the discretion of the Minister of Home Affairs ?
These are draconian laws that allow a Politician to lock up one's rival and neutralize any threat to one's political position.
These are found in Third World Countries with dictators in power - Africa, Latin America, the old Soviet Empire and its satelitte client states.
Burden of proof ?
This standard is selectively demanded from others, but not applicable to oneself. -
Claiming that there is a 'cover up' does not imo amount to defamation because no one is being defamed. It would be a sad day if one cannot spout consipracy theories, however absurd they are.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Plenty...like claiming there is a cover-up over the drowning case? Anyone can make a serious allegations like this in a forum but not willing or able to back it up with evidence....that's what the government wants to prevent. Registration makes it easier to prosecute and prevent such allegations not backed up by evidence. It used to be the same with the Forum Page in the Straits Times...but since anonymous letters were no longer accepted, the criticisms and statements have become more responsible.
The fact is, current laws, such as defamation laws, are already adequate to prevent baseless and specific allegations about identifiable individuals from being published. The IP address of an individual can probably easily be discerned if the server is in Singapore. If the server is overseas, then the issue is moot because then those laws would be in effect, whatever you legislate in singapore. Now if the server is located in countries like the UK, then, provided that there is a good and credible case, one can sue in defamation as well.
I therefore see no good reason to require registration, except perhaps, and I am being paranoid here, to facilitate extra judicial monitoring, intimidation and interference.
It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I agree with that totally. The problem with giving governments power is that power given is very difficult to take away. I therefore have a strong inclination to resist giving Governments more power without a darn good reason. The case has, imo, not been made. -
I am not being facetious, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong in suing on grounds of defamation. I see the courts as a public facility that is there to be used.Originally posted by LazerLordz: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.
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.
Could you please provide me with some examples of Singapore cases where someone has been shown to have been defamed, but which you think would not be so in another mordern commonwealth country?
One that I felt was quite *iffy* was the one against Mr Tang. -
LKY vs Devan Nair, case heard in the Superior Court in Ontario i think.Originally posted by lwflee:I am not being facetious, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong in suing on grounds of defamation. I see the courts as a public facility that is there to be used.
Could you please provide me with some examples of Singapore cases where someone has been shown to have been defamed, but which you think would not be so in another mordern commonwealth country?
One that I felt was quite *iffy* was the one against Mr Tang. -
Only The Real Impartial Justice can stop the abusing of POWER !Originally posted by lwflee:Claiming that there is a 'cover up' does not imo amount to defamation because no one is being defamed. It would be a sad day if one cannot spout consipracy theories, however absurd they are.
The fact is, current laws, such as defamation laws, are already adequate to prevent baseless and specific allegations about identifiable individuals from being published. The IP address of an individual can probably easily be discerned if the server is in Singapore. If the server is overseas, then the issue is moot because then those laws would be in effect, whatever you legislate in singapore. Now if the server is located in countries like the UK, then, provided that there is a good and credible case, one can sue in defamation as well.
I therefore see no good reason to require registration, except perhaps, and I am being paranoid here, to facilitate extra judicial monitoring, intimidation and interference.
It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I agree with that totally. The problem with giving governments power is that power given is very difficult to take away. I therefore have a strong inclination to resist giving Governments more power without a darn good reason. The case has, imo, not been made.
But it too late now, because they're already obviously BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER. -
This whole thing is going in circles.
We will always have differences of opinion, and this in itself, as seen in our little discussion, is something we have to aspire to on the macro level, the ability to have a pluralistic existence.
Too bad, it's not the same up there.
-
religion equally "dangerous" Singapore is a joke:
I wonder how dangerous it is telling people about the Gospel according to Judas Iscariot
http://news.google.com.sg/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Gospel+of+Judas&btnG=Search+News -
"
Singapore attacked over blog gag
Scene from the film Brokeback Mountain
Brokeback Mountain was recently passed by film censors in Singapore
The Singapore government has been condemned for gagging political discussion on the web in the run up to the country's parliamentary elections.
The government has extended censorship laws to ban podcasts and videocasts that carry political content.
Websites and blogs are already under strict control and must be registered with the government.
Media watchdog Reporters without Borders said the ban would prevent democratic debate on the net.
The ban was outlined by Communications and Arts minister, Balaji Sadasivan of the People's Action Party (PAP) in a parliamentary speech.
It is enforced under a 2001 law that seeks to prevent overt advertising by political parties.
New technology
The ban will come as a blow to PAP opponents, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
It has used both podcasts and videocasts in an attempt to get round traditional media censorship laws in their campaign.
The party said on their website that the latest announcement was aimed "squarely at the SDP's efforts to harness the new technology to advance its platform in the upcoming general elections".
For its part, Reporters without Borders said: "Once again the Singapore authorities are showing their determination to prevent the holding of a genuinely democratic debate on the internet."
No date has yet been announced for the election.
Outside of election periods, bloggers and website managers have to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA) if they want to write about party politics.
However during elections even registered users are prohibited from open political discussion.
The government said that anyone breaking the ban faces legal action.
The announcement is an extension of the Singapore government's strict censorship policy that applies to all media.
Recently the government relaxed some of its laws in an attempt to market the country as a hub for arts and culture.
The film, Brokeback Mountain, passed film censors this year, in spite of the country's stringent laws against homosexuality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4882746.stm -
Wonder if they will get sued over this?Originally posted by LazerLordz: -
agree... which was why i pointed out the fact that ours is an authoritarian society.... because before anyone launches a bitter diatribe complaining about what the govt has done in contrary to democracy, we must first realise what the current situation is... then we can better fight for our ideal in a more well-informed way... i.e. exercising our voting rights with full knowledge what we are striving for!Originally posted by LazerLordz: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?
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". -
in the recent Thai case - when no opposition running in a constituency there is still YES or NO vote. PAP simply declares themselves the winner when there is no opposition contesting in the ward.
Why do i feeel that PAP is so chow kuan? if they are so chow kuan in this matter then the other things we don't know about are....???? -
One good example of us trying to tell people what to say. This is what I do not want Singapore to become, a nation with a government that seeks to tell others what to say about us.Originally posted by casino_king:Wonder if they will get sued over this?
When you are faced with international publications saying B, and one lone govt voice saying A, I'm more inclined to believe B. Nuff said. There might be factions and interests at play, that's why all we ask are a multiplicity of views for the voters and citizens to judge for themselves, because no single point of view can be trusted wholesale in this turbulent world.
Do not belittle the citizens by saying that political discourse is dangerous just because it's not published by the Straits Times..In the same vein, why not just dismantle the education system, since by association, the logical assumption is that we are not educated after all.
-
Singapore needs her own people to show the way forward, not merely one group's ideas which may not go down well with others.Originally posted by KittynMeow:agree... which was why i pointed out the fact that ours is an authoritarian society.... because before anyone launches a bitter diatribe complaining about what the govt has done in contrary to democracy, we must first realise what the current situation is... then we can better fight for our ideal in a more well-informed way... i.e. exercising our voting rights with full knowledge what we are striving for!
A marketplace of ideas will suss out those that will not work with the populace, and ensure nothing is forced down their throat.
Not only that, the space for armchair observers must be respected, because there has to be a wide latitude of political participation from all spectrums of the society.A strong Republic needs input from all sources, in many aspects, not limiting to political parties, but also society as a whole. -
Is it safe from the SYSTEM in which the POWER OF ONE dominates ?Originally posted by miongisback:If the our government cracks down on Singaporeans' podcast and blogs do not despair.
If you feel you have a statement to make, use Googles Video. Stay anonymous if you like, Googles is safe. Even the Pres of USA cant touch them!
Google Video is the best new medium for making your statement .
If you want people to believe you, make sure you don't say anything that is libellious or nonsensical.
Read the following : "Googles Sell Out Freedom of Speech"
Is there any difference between the Peoples Republic of China dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, and the "People's" Republic of Singapore dominated by the POWER OF ONE ? -
any nation with "people" or "democratic" in its official title, can be safely said to be otherwise.
-
problem is we don't have a marketplace of ideas at the moment... not just because of regulatory reasons that clamp on any barter exchange of ideas in the first place, but also because of the inherent spiral of silence that everyone is so comfortable with....Originally posted by LazerLordz:Singapore needs her own people to show the way forward, not merely one group's ideas which may not go down well with others.
A marketplace of ideas will suss out those that will not work with the populace, and ensure nothing is forced down their throat.
Not only that, the space for armchair observers must be respected, because there has to be a wide latitude of political participation from all spectrums of the society.A strong Republic needs input from all sources, in many aspects, not limiting to political parties, but also society as a whole. -
There seem to be no lack of ideas in this sgForums that have yet to see any clamp being placed.Originally posted by KittynMeow:problem is we don't have a marketplace of ideas at the moment... not just because of regulatory reasons that clamp on any barter exchange of ideas in the first place, but also because of the inherent spiral of silence that everyone is so comfortable with....
Is there any "inherent spiral of silence that everyone is so comfortable with..." ?
Can we depend on the summary of viewers - of all the threads posted and compare it with the number of responses to the various threads - to conclude this "inherent spiral of silence" ?
Is the silence due to the cynicism that is seen to be so pervasive towards those who post critical views towards the SYSTEM created by the POWER OF ONE ? -
i find so much of what you "open-minded", sliding-towards-sg-government-bashing people have to say incredibly utopian in ideals but not at all achievable in any society.
Its fair to say, hey i want a government that allows us to express our own views no matter how rubbish they might be. But to what extent are you willing to sacrifice your comforts in life for ideals?
Dont get me wrong. I'm all for fighting for your ideals and rights in any society. BUT. There is a danger here that i fear many do not see. I'm going to give you a clear cut example. Take the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia for example. Just before the Khmer Rouge gained power, Cambodia was a fricking rich country, proudcer and exporter of rice; also very technogically advanced for the 1940s (i think it was then) and a hub for business. HOWEVER, due to corruption in the government, which was made public, many wanted them to step down, and many people supported the Khmer Rouge ideals (which are no different from yours or mine during the campaign period). When the new party finally came into power, disaster broke out and just because of 3 years of bad governing, look at the state of cambodia today. It is utterly backwards, it cannot even produce enough to feed its own people.
Take the recent stepping down of Thaksin. My point is that the people forget how the present government, no matter how corrupted or authoritative or dogmatic it may be, actually did shit LOADS for the lives of the people. That is why the peasants supported Thaksin. The rich dont care, the rich have too much time and money on their hands and they think they have earned their wealth without any help from the government. BULLSHIT. Whatever you have right now, whatever comforts, whatever opportunities you have in your hands, YOU DID NOT EARN IT ALL BY YOURSELF. Just fucking count yourself lucky to be born in singapore where you get mandatory education. You think you will be able to live as you are right now if you were born in the poor areas of india or worse, south africa?
That is why i am wary of people who claim to fight ALL THE WAY for free speech, those who are over eager to nit pick with the government, because i feel that they are spoiled citizens. Appreciate what you have right now, thats all i have to say.
I'm not saying that you have to close your mind to any viewpoints and to NEVER question the government. Done intelligently with proper knowledge, research and a well rounded viewpoint, it can benefit a country. BUT the thing is, most complaints and ramblings are done out of boredom and childish frustration, and i find they tend to do more harm than any real good. -
That is so true. It is also telling when people who criticize the government have absolutely nothing positive to say and offer no credible solutions. I disagree with many government policies but one should give credit where credit is due.
And just because you agree with some government policies does not make you a government dog either...how immature can people be?[/quote] -
Originally posted by CaramelCrab:
I've some questions to ask you because I really don't know what is going wrong.
i find so much of what you "open-minded", sliding-towards-sg-government-bashing people have to say incredibly utopian in ideals but not at all achievable in any society.
Its fair to say, hey i want a government that allows us to express our own views no matter how rubbish they might be. But to what extent are you willing to sacrifice your comforts in life for ideals?
Dont get me wrong. I'm all for fighting for your ideals and rights in any society. BUT. There is a danger here that i fear many do not see. I'm going to give you a clear cut example. Take the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia for example. Just before the Khmer Rouge gained power, Cambodia was a fricking rich country, proudcer and exporter of rice; also very technogically advanced for the 1940s (i think it was then) and a hub for business. HOWEVER, due to corruption in the government, which was made public, many wanted them to step down, and many people supported the Khmer Rouge ideals (which are no different from yours or mine during the campaign period). When the new party finally came into power, disaster broke out and just because of 3 years of bad governing, look at the state of cambodia today. It is utterly backwards, it cannot even produce enough to feed its own people.
Take the recent stepping down of Thaksin. [b]My point is that the people forget how the present government, no matter how corrupted or authoritative or dogmatic it may be, actually did shit LOADS for the lives of the people. That is why the peasants supported Thaksin. The rich dont care, the rich have too much time and money on their hands and they think they have earned their wealth without any help from the government. BULLSHIT. Whatever you have right now, whatever comforts, whatever opportunities you have in your hands, YOU DID NOT EARN IT ALL BY YOURSELF. Just fucking count yourself lucky to be born in singapore where you get mandatory education. You think you will be able to live as you are right now if you were born in the poor areas of india or worse, south africa?
That is why i am wary of people who claim to fight ALL THE WAY for free speech, those who are over eager to nit pick with the government, because i feel that they are spoiled citizens. Appreciate what you have right now, thats all i have to say.
I'm not saying that you have to close your mind to any viewpoints and to NEVER question the government. Done intelligently with proper knowledge, research and a well rounded viewpoint, it can benefit a country. BUT the thing is, most complaints and ramblings are done out of boredom and childish frustration, and i find they tend to do more harm than any real good.[/b]
1) Please help to name which country leaders using Defamation Lawsuit to sue political opponents untill they gone bankcruptcy or escape to another country ?
2) Which Democratic country leader pass political power to his children ?
3) Which country using public housing up-grading as a threat if the their MP is not voted in the paliament ?
4) Which country force car owner to dispose their own car after 10 years ?
5) Which country pay higher than Singapore PM and other Minister ?
I would like to stop at 5 questions and let many others whom can help me to name more later. -
i think lwflee, atobe and lazerlords gave very sound rebuttals and i share their sentiments. if it was meant to be a cover up, you think they would leave traces behind for you to find out? even if they do leave traces, you think they would be stupid enough to invite you to get close enough to sniff out any evidence of mismanagement? so even if they did cover up, you would never ever know would you?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Plenty...like claiming there is a cover-up over the drowning case? Anyone can make a serious allegations like this in a forum but not willing or able to back it up with evidence....that's what the government wants to prevent. Registration makes it easier to prosecute and prevent such allegations not backed up by evidence. It used to be the same with the Forum Page in the Straits Times...but since anonymous letters were no longer accepted, the criticisms and statements have become more responsible.
CSJ has also made claims about illegal financial transactions involving the Burmese...but where's the evidence?
However, that is not a reason to ban podcasts though..Our existing laws are more than sufficient to deal with any party attempting to pass defamatory remarks in podcasts. That move by the government does appear to be protectionist..
about the CSJ case. he may have caught wind of some imminent transactions, whether it was intended as a red herring to lure him or a real intention initially on the part of our govt (which really isn't surprising as you see the amount of help we've rendered indonesia of late). in any case, to prove CSJ's case, we would need to prove that there was actual correspondence, discussions, meetings amongst the govt officials involved in the intended transaction which did not materialise eventually. that would require investigators to go into govt offices unimpeded and given full access to emails, pcs, documents ... given that the investigators themselves are employed by the govt, what possibility is there of them turning out anything useful to CSJ?