PAP must address 'negative' internet
-
Please, why should we have faith in leaders who like to benchmark their success against 3rd world nations?Originally posted by king108:
1st World Nation only required to recieve praise from Supreme Standard Country like US.
Getting it from 3rd World Nations, What so great about it, so maybe CNN and ST decided no to show them..It's Ok.
PM Lee also never bother about all this and why you so hard up? All these are artificial..you stepped down they still come to look for the next one.
So many good wishes..and I will wish them "God Bless You" and ensure a smooth flight.."Yi Lu Shun Fong" 
-
A keen eye on GE bloggers, but touch gets lighter.
LOH CHEE KONG
[email protected]
NOT a single blogger faces any Government action for postings during the recent General Election and yes, even the Minister for Information, communications and The Arts enjoyed the popular podcast that spoofed the James Gomez saga.
In fact the Government, which placed restrictions on online political content, will review its policies and could adopt “a lighter touch” during the next election, said Dr Lee Boon Yang.
Nonetheless, he felt that policing of new media such as podcasts was necessary “to keep the electoral process on an even keel”. At the annual PR Academy conference yesterday, Dr Lee told reporters: “We have no cause to take any action on anybody …You don’t go around with a heavy hammer knocking everybody, just for the slightest infringement. We look at the consequences and we look at the intent.”
Conceding that the jury is still out on whether the Government was right in its cautious approach, Dr Lee said: “While podcasts and videocasts for political advertisements were disallowed during the election period, political parties were able to make their presence felt in cyberspace by making good use of their websites to publicise their programmes. This was on top of the ample
coverage given by the mainstream media.” He said that during his campaigning, a friend sent him the podcast created by bloggers mr brown and Mr Miyagi that poked fun at the James Gomez incident.
“I enjoyed it too and had a good laugh,” said Dr Lee. Calling it symptomatic of the Internet, headded: “I must congratulate mr brown … for his funny and clever work … (but) while podcasts can be very entertaining, it would be dangerous if important decisions such as electing representatives to Parliament were basedon which side can make the most funny video or podcast.”
While he accepted the argument that a free flow of information would allow people to form their own opinion, Dr Lee said it was valid only if the information was reliable and accurate.
“I think those of you who are familiar with the Internet would agree that there are many people who use their websites and blogs to put out malicious and false information in order to further their own agendas. It may not be easy to sort out the enlightening from the confusing which ought to be destined for the trash can.”
Among the malicious postings there were those that claimed that Mr Zaqy Mohamad was selected as a new PeopleÂ’s Action Party candidate only because he was a nephew of the Speaker of Parliament Abdullah Tarmugi. In fact, the two are not related.
Said Dr Lee: “Such stories might be completely untrue but how do we rebut it on the Internet and get a correction carried on hundreds of blogs, bulletins and chatrooms which rapidly propagated such lies?”
Nonetheless, Dr Lee said the Government fully understood the mood among the youth who see blogging as their right.
“We have adopted a light touch approach in dealing with the everyday use of the Internet. We will continue to do so and accept that the Internet and new media will remain largely a free-for-all. However during the election period when such free-for-all may result in undesirable situations, we cannot take a completely hands-off approach.”
During the recent GE, the Singapore Democratic Party was the only one served a notice to take down a podcast. No action was taken against anyone else. But while there may be a loosening on the political front, no one who causes racial tension will be spared. “The Government will not compromise its
position,” said Dr Lee.
“We will not risk the precious racial and religious armony which underpins Singapore’s stability and progress.” -
I find Dr Lee's speech rather blend and does not really focus on the actual basis of 'moderating' the internet. In fact, it is evident that he avoids those topics entirely and prefers to give open explanations that could be interpreted both ways.
Below are 3 of his comments i singled out for discussion:
Nonetheless, he felt that policing of new media such as podcasts was necessary “to keep the electoral process on an even keel”.
This seems more like a reaction to 'police' the relative unknown territory of the internet, an area obviously out of direct control of the govt. There are certainly some companies like Google that could be deemed 'untouchable' from lawsuits even by our esteemed sue-happy govt. Therefore, it isn't surprising to notice several of Chee Soon Juan's video podcasts on the google website.
The 2nd part of his justification was the aim to 'even the playing field of the electoral process'. This point is quite moot. The internet, being an independent body answerable to no one, is perfectly impartial and it is ridiculous to claim that political podcasts would slant viewer's opinion or give unfair tactical advantage to one party. There is no overall webmaster who audits and nip-tucks each and every podcast; moreover it is impossible to filter every shred of information and authenticate them. It is partially up to the reader's maturity of thought to differentiate fact from fiction.
In fact, podcasts work both ways as the Ruling Party could also post their own to counter those of the alternatives.
It is more than likely that the reason for this decree is based on the illogical (but true) assumption that, as with PAP-alternative rallies, more people prefer to watch alternative podcasts rather than listen to a parallel but predicatable equivalents by the Ruling Party. And the Ruling Party may have no avenue to manoeuvre given this predicament.
Hence the 'legislative' measure.
This was on top of the ample coverage given by the mainstream media.”
Being part of a political party which has virtually full control of state-owned media, it is only natural for Dr Lee to see small snippets of alternative articles (most of them skewed against the alternatives anyway) and claim that is 'ample coverage'.
These are times where myopia has truly become myopic.
“We have adopted a light touch approach in dealing with the everyday use of the Internet. We will continue to do so and accept that the Internet and new media will remain largely a free-for-all. However during the election period when such free-for-all may result in undesirable situations, we cannot take a completely hands-off approach.”
This statement is as good as no statement at all. As with standard govt approach, Dr Lee has adopted a relatively flip-flop approach. He starts off by saying that the govt will adopt a 'light touch', but neglects to say what he means by light touch, only going as far as to say the internet is at times a 'no man's land'; then he jumps to the other foggy extreme, claiming that during situations such as elections, they cannot adopt a totally 'hand-off approach', but once again, declining to state exactly what he defines as 'undesirable situations'.
Instead, his press statements leave more questions than answers. -
I think they'll still go after even non-political public citizens airing their views in personal blogs when they deem the content is "negative".
In the public domain space where I feel they should not be touchy, lighter touch is still touch. -
mata lai liao!