A group of bloggers have submitted a 20-page proposal on Internet freedom to the Government, a move which reflects a small number of committed netizens willing to stand up and be counted.

The group of 13 regularly discuss Singapore politics and society on their blogs. They include law undergraduate Choo Zheng Xi of The Online Citizen, activist Alex Au of Yawning Bread and media lecturer Cherian George.

Their main argument is that any regulation of online content should not be at the administrative discretion of ministers and civil servants, who have been given legal powers to do so.

Rather, such regulation should be done through prosecution in a court of law or, preferably, moderation by a consultative body of citizens.

The proposal comes just as a government-appointed advisory council is studying the impact of new media on society and whether existing rules should be updated.

One major bugbear for bloggers is Section 5b of the Broadcasting Act's Class Licence Notification. It requires the registration of websites deemed by the authorities to be propagating political or religious issues relating to Singapore.

The last time any website was required to register as a political site was in 2001. The owner of the site in question, Sintercom, chose to shut down the site in protest, arguing that registration could open it up to lawsuits.

Exactly what 'political' means, and whether blogs fall into this category, are unclear and rest on the interpretations of the Media Development Authority (MDA) and the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica).

The bloggers' proposal criticises such a requirement to register as vague and unwarranted.

By putting forward a proposal on Internet freedom, this is not to say that bloggers favour a 'free-for-all', Dr George told me in an interview. 'There are societal interests that can be protected only by state intervention. But the best form that this will take is laws that can be debated in Parliament and subjected to the courts,' he said.

The proposal suggests organising a committee of citizens familiar with the Internet, that can be consulted whenever controversies arise regarding digital content.

It makes a case for increasingly subjecting 'more and more so-called 'sensitive' areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state with people's own capacities for discernment and judgment'.

After all, as Dr George explained, 'if there are societal interests like values and protection of racial and religious harmony, who better to decide than society itself?'

Citizens' committees already play a moderating role in the regulatory process for film, publications and theatre, where you have clearly defined products, authors and distributors.

The question is: How effective can such a committee be in regulating a boundless medium like the Internet? There is a high likelihood that the deliberations of a group of concerned citizens will always be one or several steps behind online content that can morph and travel at lightning speed.

Nonetheless, the criticism of bureaucratic ambiguity puts the spotlight on a problem that has long bedevilled artists and writers here - too broadly defined 'out of bounds' markers which breed fear of where the axe may fall, and hence self-censorship.

This ambiguity is strategic, of course. What creative individuals see as a push to self-censor, others see as 'responsible self-regulation'. Over time, the insidious nature of this tension produces conformity, negotiation or drives some away from self-expression altogether.

As part of its delicate balancing act between openness and control, the Government periodically reviews regulations on media and the arts.

For example, the ban on party political films is reportedly being scrutinised by the new media advisory council. The 1998 ruling led to a gag on two documentaries made by film-makers on opposition politicians here.

In the area of the Internet, the Government has maintained a relatively hands-off, light-touch policy which it shows no signs of reversing.

Nonetheless, the current rules do hold potential traps for someone who wants to blog or pursue online journalism in a more professional and committed way.

Aside from the requirement to register political websites, the other area of contention is how the ban on election advertising may be applied to independent websites.

Section 78A (1) (b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides for the regulation of election advertising over the Net during an election period.

While this section applies mainly to political parties, Mica's then-senior minister of state Balaji Sadasivan said in Parliament in 2006 that blogs that 'persistently promote political issues' will be asked to register as a political site. The bar on election advertising would then apply to them.

The recent proposal by the 13 bloggers argues that such rules have had a 'chilling effect' on online speech, as 'the arbitrariness of deciding which website will next be called upon to submit itself to registration inevitably promotes self-censorship and a wariness about discussing certain subjects'.

Going by historical precedent, their appeal for such rules to be dropped altogether will take time to gain acceptance. During the 2003 censorship review, the theatre community submitted a proposal to do away with the requirement that plays must be licensed and their scripts vetted beforehand.

Today, plays must still be submitted to MDA for licensing, with exceptions made for those held at the Esplanade and The Arts House. Some scripts - for example, those on race or religion - still need to be pre-vetted.

What is notable about the bloggers' proposal, though, is that it signals the beginnings of a 'blogging community' here, one engaged in serious public discourse rather than anonymous flaming and name-calling.