Their verdict on new-media proposals: Advisory council's approach overly cautious 

By Jeremy Au Yong

Good, but not good enough.

That was the verdict yesterday of a group of bloggers on a list of proposals a Government-sponsored panel had put up for managing new media.

It has some 'good, forward-looking options' but the approach was overly-cautious, said the group which calls itself 'The Bloggers 13'.

They had, in April this year, handed their list of suggestions on Internet freedom to the Government, to pre-empt the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims).

The council released its consultation paper last Friday and is now seeking public feedback on its proposals.

'Bloggers 13' members (from left) Ng E-Jay, Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi giving their feedback on proposals for regulating the Net. The group welcomed some 'good, forward-looking options' but expressed reservations too. -- ST PHOTO: FRANCIS ONG

But when three members of the group - Mr Alex Au, Mr Choo Zheng Xi and Mr Ng E-Jay - met reporters yesterday, their responses were only on the political changes. They want a near free-for-all approach towards online political content.

In fact, for every Aims suggestion that called for a relaxing of restrictions, the bloggers went one-up and asked for the law to be removed completely.

Where the panel gave three ideas for easing the ban on party political films, the bloggers wanted an unconditional repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act.

In fact, they also wanted Section 35 of the Films Act to go, a move that would render the Government powerless to ban any film contrary to public interest.

The panel had also urged that more activities be allowed for online election advertising. But the bloggers asked if such a list is even necessary.

Similarly, they disagreed with Aims' suggestion that political bloggers be exempted from registering under the Class License Scheme. They want it dumped altogether.

The scheme requires all who deal with political material or religious issues online to register with the Media Development Authority.

In addition, it treats all websites as automatically licensed, meaning their owners must adhere to a prescribed code of conduct. For instance, the code prohibits the posting of pornographic material.

The bloggers argue that existing laws adequately deal with pornography or racial and religious hate-mongering without the need for such a scheme.

The only suggestion they agreed with is the lifting of the ban on 100 websites. Aims believes that once its proposals for the protection of minors are in place, the list becomes unnecessary.

Mr Choo explained the bloggers' decision to ignore the sections about protection of minors, immunity for intermediaries and Government engagement.

'In terms of substantive legislation this is probably where we feel we can most contribute to,' said the 22-year-old law undergraduate.

When his group gave their suggestions to the Government, they were concerned that the Aims study would focus too much on the views of experts.

Asked if they now felt their move was justified, Mr Au said: 'What is important is that they (Aims) have come up with something that is quite substantive.'

There is very little to fault in its background analysis, he added.

People keen on giving their feedback can attend a forum on Sept 19. Its details will be available at www.aims.org.sg

* * * * *

On the same evening as the press conference, 3 September 2008:

* * * * *

'Today' newspaper, 4 September 2008

By Alicia Wong

They called the official report "forward looking" but clearly, its recommendations were too cautious and focused on the short-term for one group of bloggers.

Five days after the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) announced its findings came the response of 12 out of the 13 bloggers who in April handed the Government a proposal on Internet freedom.

And the netizens’ response took the form of suggestions of their own — such as an unconditional repeal of the Films Act Section 33 — on how Aims’ proposals should have gone a step further.

With the council having highlighted fundamental shortcomings in current legislation, Mr Choo Zheng Xi, co-editor of The Online Citizen, said that "the logical conclusion following their criticism really should be, ‘let’s go all the way’."

Yawningbread.org’s Alex Au put it another way: While the 13 bloggers had "asked ourselves what should be the destination and then worked backwards" to propose changes, Aims seemed more focused on plugging "gaps" where technology has "moved far ahead of the existing legislation".

For instance, the council had suggested narrowing the scope of the Films Act so only "clearly misleading" films are banned, or repealing the law and introducing a "blackout period" where new party political films cannot be created or distributed during elections.

Why not repeal Section 33 without condition? Politically slanted videos, Mr Au said, are "an integral part of the democratic process" and will help citizens strengthen their "political discernment". And as Aims had noted, a blackout period may be unfair as the incumbent party has prior knowledge of when the election will be, and could release party political films just before.

The bloggers also asked to repeal Section 35 of the Films Act, which empowers the Minister to ban any film at his discretion. They argued for scrapping the list of acceptable practices during elections, and to allow online fundraising.

Settle violations in open court

While agreeing with Aims’ proposal to abandon the symbolic ban on 100 websites — mainly pornographic — bloggers pushed to dismantle the entire Class Licensing Scheme, which treats all websites as automatically licensed and liable to be fined by the authorities for violations of the code of practice.

Saying that this scheme leads to self-censorship online, Mr Au argued: "As the Aims paper says, there is already adequate legislation in place, whether to deal with child pornography or racial and religious hate-mongering."

Bloggers also wanted Aims to consider the principles they had raised in their April proposal: Scrapping Internet-specific regulation, free flow of information and transparency in regulation. So, instead of having the Media Development Authority or Board of Film Censors regulate films, violations should be settled in open court, for instance.

Mr Au said because they focused on "gaps", Aims’ recommendations were "under-whelming" and could result in a lack of coherence. He thus urged the council to come up with a vision, then a regulatory regime that lives up to it.

On the state’s desire to engage netizens, Mr Choo said: "You cannot divorce e-engagement from the larger political process." That is to say, offline policies must change for e-engagement to be effective.

For instance, he noted, on policies such as Electronic Road Pricing and foreign talent, the Government should seriously take into account citizens’ offline feedback first, before thinking of how to "market the e-engagement process".

Mr Ng E-Jay, editor of Sgpolitics.net, suggested the Government do more to publicise online forums. He only learnt about its feedback arm, Reach, the day before.

Speaking to Today, deputy director of the Institute of Policy Studies Arun Mahizhnan said while the Aims report has "a few points that need to be debated," it has made a significant leap compared to previous government thinking.

Alex: 'Everyone is held accountable for their words. There is such a thing as reputation.'

Zheng Xi: 'I do not need to be a politician to talk about politics. It is my civic duty. We are held accountable by the quality of what we say.'

Benjamin: 'As bloggers, we must have evidence, do our research, and be responsible for what we say and do. From there, we have moral authority to address our readers.'

Singaporean bloggers have always seemed to distrust the traditional media. Why are you holding a press conference?

Alex: 'I have my criticism about the traditional media but I do not dismiss it.

'I have enough respect for the traditional media to believe it will grow with the times. And my purpose is to prod it in that direction.'

Zheng Xi: 'The traditional media is here to stay.

'It is still the best way to engage the public and the government. Ultimately, it has the highest readership.'

Benjamin: 'It's a public perception, a stereotype, which is not entirely true. Most bloggers base their work on the mainstream media.'

Many bloggers choose to remain anonymous or criticise from a safe distance. Has stepping forward disempowered you as a blogger?

Alex: 'Not at all. Making myself identifiable has made me reachable by the mass media. It amplifies my opinions.'

E-Jay: 'Putting my real name on the Net has compelled me to be responsible.

'But I respect anyone's decision to stay anonymous. Anonymity is what gives them confidence, and confidence is very lacking right now in society.'

Benjamin: 'If a blogger's ideas are credible, then it shouldn't matter if he is anonymous or not, because the ideas are larger than the person.'

Yes, we know the big deal about free speech. But let's get real here. Did you take any precautions before speaking up?

Alex: 'I do not believe that censorship is as terrible as some anonymous bloggers imagine it to be. I've run my Yawning Bread blog for 12 years and I haven't run into any trouble.'

Zheng Xi: 'The only precaution I take is checking and double-checking my facts.'

Benjamin: 'No. According to the Constitution, I'm entitled to free speech, since my criticism is properly researched and documented.'

Free speech is also about knowing how to give and take criticism. What was the worst thing anyone has said about you online and how did you react?

Zheng Xi: 'There was a website dedicated to calling me a PAP dog. I was depressed for, like, 15 minutes but then I told myself to get over it.

'You have to put your principles above your ego.'

E-Jay: 'I prefer not to go into that. Online remarks can be very nasty and vulgar. I believe that insults are OK, but we must understand that with free speech comes responsibility.'

Benjamin: 'Someone pretended to be me and went around flaming other people.

'He made horrible comments under my name and people actually believed him.

'Eventually, I filtered through every comment and e-mailed every person who received a fake message from him.

'I believe he is one of my schoolmates. But why should I care who he is? There's no point wasting time on him.

Last week, Aims released a public consultation paper with proposals to free up the Internet for political discourse.

The Bloggers 13, who run some of the most popular sites, responded favourably. But these are four areas which they felt could be improved:

1. Section 33 of the Films Act, which prohibits the making, distributing and exhibiting if party political films, should be repealed unconditionally.

In its proposal, Aims suggested that the Act be liberalised in one of three ways - narrowing its scope, repealing it in phases or repealing it outright.

2. Section 35 of the Films Act should also be repealed.

This section empowers the Minister for Information, Communication andm the Arts to ban any film at his discretion. Aims had not proposed such a repeal.

3. The "positive list" for Internet election advertising should be removed.

This list decides the type of digitl content, such as videos, blogs or social networks, that can be used by candidates during an election.

Aims proposed broadening the list.

4. The Class Licensing Scheme should be dismantled.

This scheme requires groups that want to discuss religious or political issues on the Internet to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA).

Aims only proposed removing the need for registration. But the Bloggers 13 believe that the scheme itself is different from the registration requirement because the scheme treats all websites as automatically licensed even if owners are not called upon to register.