Internet Regulation: more to come?

WHEN Yio Chu Kang MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a resident last month, a significant number of netizens posted unkind comments.

These included a list of 10 things he ‘must be thankful for’ as well as remarks that he deserved what happened.

On Wednesday, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew said he did not think the Internet community did enough to rebut some of these comments.

‘It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation,’ he told Parliament.

He made the remark with a tinge of disappointment as just a month ago, the Government had largely accepted a report by a government-appointed committee that said it was a good thing for the Internet community to exercise greater self-regulation.

The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or Aims, issued its report last December.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui’s remark was in his reply to Ms Penny Low, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, who asked for his views on netizens’ response to the attack on Mr Seng. She noted that they had voted quite unjustly in an online poll.

The poll asked who deserved more sympathy: Mr Seng or his attacker Ong Kah Chua. The ex-cabby received 200 votes and Mr Seng, 56.

RADM Lui noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng. But the vast majority were “unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous.”

“It was disappointing, and my impression is that I do not think the community itself have done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens,” he added.

It is interesting to note a few points. What constitutes a “higher degree of self-regulation” and what constitutes “enough”? In many threads I’ve read regarding the issue in my bit to catch up with the local news, yes I’ve read comments both hurtful and helpful and more often than not those threads spiral into flame wars as forumers get into arguments; the sympathetic show concern and the hardliners disdain and hatred, both for MP Seng and his sympathisers.

For self-regulation to exist, one must regulate him or herself no? If not why call it self-regulation? If you expect a community to regulate, that’s policing. Isn’t that what Lui is asking for? Not everyone is participating in the cyberworld to play cyber-cop! Afterall, the Internet practises free speech and most netizens respect that.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Noam Chomsky

When is it enough? Perhaps Lui would like to quantify this. Is Lui expecting the community to police their own? To what end? Cyber-vigilantism or as per net-speak, to CSI their own? The human race might be moving forward but why hasn’t traditional crimes like murder and rape and adultery gone out of style? Basic Human Instinct. Like it is now, agitators and instigators will forever exist. Therefore the stimga of the Internet community not demonstrating a “higher degree of self-regulation” will always exist, despite any efforts by the overall community. It’s like saying crimes like robbery and murder are the community’s fault for not displaying a  “higher degree of self-regulation”.

This is a portent of more things to come. With a special on Internet Regulation appearing in Parliament as well as national TV (shout out to SG Enquirer, The Void Deck and The Online Citizen for their seconds of fame!) and newsprint, we might just see some earth-shaking things happen, for the worse.

It’s different

The horrible attack on MP Seng Han Thong shocked me when I was told the news just as I touched down on familiar soil. Apparently some mentally unstable chap set the MP on fire during a walk-about. And he’s now down and out for 12 months with 15% burns.

Catching up with the local news unveiled quite abit. Several salient points stood out.

First of all was the clear and blatant bid for sympathy by the mass media for this attack. Granted being burned is no trivial matter, but the mass media painted a picture of horror and suffrage that drama’ed the entire episode. Ok… so he got burned 15%. Ouch. But let us not forget the heroine of SQ006, Ms Farzana, who was burned over 45% of her body while trying to save lives. She endured 11 skin grafts and years of pain, but pulled through with a new life in Malaysia. Or the 2 SAF personnel who survived the Taiwanese jet crash in 2007? IIRC they suffered horrible burns then too, much worse than 15%. What’s the word on them? So yes, the mass media is guilty of over-selling the sob story. That’s pro-PAP print for you. But is it because he’s an MP? Hold on there.

The other thing that stood out was that there is some talk that the MP deserved it, that all shit politicians should be burned or worse. This is ridiculous. There is a proper way and a I’m-gonna-break-your-balls-if-you-try-it way. The proper is and always is with the ballot box. The IGBYBIYTI way is anything other than voting the chap out, including this horrific attack, or punching the dude for that matter. If you do the IGBYBIYTI way, I for one am fucking glad you got your balls broken.

There’s talk of some encouraging this form of reprisal. What do you think is going to happen if you even suggest his? Well, you might want to accuse the government of neanderthal tactics or abuse of police powers or whatnot, but let’s face the facts, he’s an MP. It’s different. Over the months of the US election campaigns, there were numerous threats of death against President (tomorrow?) Obama’s life. All of them were investigated by the US Secret Service. Recently one was arrested for making the same kind of threats. This is the US of A, not China or North Korea mind you. So even they are wary about attacks or even suggesting attacks against their political leaders. It might not even have to be Obama, but I believe their law enforcement does not take kindly to threats against any of their political leaders be it Governors, Senators or Congressmen.

So if you start spouting nonsense, be prepared to be whacked with a huge hammer on your head. And if you do spout or get whacked, don’t come running to me about abuse of police powers. This is serious business.

And finally the last thing. is all this attention because he’s a PAP MP? Well, see above. It’s different. It’s like this, when thousands die in Sichuan we read the news, pop a few dollars in a box and flip the page. Yet when John Travolta’s son dies, the whole world weeps. It’s all a matter of perspective. You read stories and flip the page. But when it happens close to you, it matters. But from a general perspective an attack on an MP warrants more attention. Just enough of the sob story already.