The Singapore Daily

Closure?

That was the headlines of Straits Times yesterday. A few pages into the paper, u will find that the players are still rather grim. While Lee Bee Wah’s voice apparently quavered, Li Jiawei was reported to have snapped at a reported when asked if she was still leaving. (Forgive me, I did spend 80 cents on ST. How often do u find someone apologising publicly in Singapore??)

In due time we will see who stays and who goes. Meanwhile, it does give the players plenty of reasons to defend themselves should they have a less than desirable outing at the table tennis world championship.

The other reason why Straits Time was a good buy yesterday is because the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) has spoken. They have drawn up a 95 page report with write-ups of its four principles published in the Straits Times on Saturday. According to the paper, the proposal has not been submitted to the Government yet.

Here’s the summary and some comments.

1. Engaging Citizens - Government should engage online forums
Aims feel that people need to be shown that their online feedback is being taken seriously. As such, Aims suggest that civil servants should be trained to respond to answer queries/feedback online. A youth panel should be setup too.

Personally, I feel that the Government would be less than keen to respond to anonymous feedback and comment. We probably have to list a contact number or drum roll please, our IC number.

2. Political content Online - Three ways to tackle Section 33
Aims said that the current law “stifles expression”. They called for a “broad drift-net approach”.

a. Keep the law but make it specific
To excluding only films that distort facts and mislead the viewers. What makes the cut and what does not will be determined by an independent, non-partisan citizen’s panel.

b. Get rid of the law but introduce other rules
To repeal Section 33 from Films and introduce several possible conditions, such as a blackout on new political films during election season.

c. Get rid of the law in stages
To repeal the law in phases, by first narrowing its scope then moving towards a total removal when “the negative risks of misleading films are assessed to have been minimised”

It was reported that the council remains undecided. They had declined to comment on which decision they were leaning toward.

I think it is evident that they are leaning towards point c. In that way, the assessment will never end and the restrictions would never be lifted.

At the same time, Aims called for prodcasts, videocasts, blogs and other new media tools to be allowed as part of election advertising. The Parliamentary Elections Act should be amended accordingly. Political parties should still register but individual bloggers and webmasters should be exempted from it.

3. To protecting minors, education is the best shield against cyber dangers

I quote “a well-funded national body would be able to fill any gaps that exist and look at serious challenges like cyberbullying from different angles”.

The last I looked, even well-funded organisations like NKF, Ren Ci and even the Ministry of Home Affairs have slipped up. What gives?

Aims said restrictions on the currently blocked 100 pornographic and extremist websites would be lifted.
Bizzare.

4. Protecting online hosts. Defamation suits: Spare the content hosts
I quote “since no case involving a content host had gone to trial, the law remains untested, says Aims”. This is obviously testing the Government to come forth and implement some law.

Aims also suggested a “put back notice” where genuine people can request for the post to be reposted again.

Quotable Quotes

“Whereas if you just put up a video on the internet, basically people view it from a remote location and there’s no impact on other third parties,” Professor Tan Chen Han, deputy chairman of Aims

“What you say in your private blog may not be treated the same way as going to Fullerton Sq and shouting the same thing,” Charles Lim, principal Senior State counsel in the Attorney-General’s chambers.

The vibe I got is Aims has presented a very broad directive and have seemingly decided that they will await public feedback to rectify their proposal before submitting it to the Government. Obviously when they say that the 100 pornographic and extremists sites would be unblocked is definitely going to stir panic amongst parents and religious groups.

Aims may not have committed themselves to anything but I feel they have suggested plenty. The proposal gives the Government plenty of “loopholes” to nail. What appears to be clear and open now is probably a farce. I know I shouldn’t discredit them now. However, what they are suggesting is so much more than the Government is willing to compromise.

Considering Aims is looking forward to receiving public feedback, B doesn’t understand why the new article wasn’t made available online.

Thanks for reading,
the B.

P.S Aims’ website - http://www.aims.org.sg. You will need to leave your name and email address. You can even attach an attachment.